Medical Marijuana Research Act

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the chair of the House Administration Committee, for the opportunity to be here today.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 3005, but not because of the goals that it attempts to achieve. Many of us have been fighting for those same things. In fact, some of the comments that she made, you will find in my remarks about some of the people whose statues are here that I do not believe should be in this honored building, and I have fought for a long time to remove those. But I am in opposition to the process of which we are trying to impose to do this.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, as I stated earlier, you will find that many, if not all, on this side of the aisle will agree with most of the comments, if not all the comments, that are made by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

I think we need to go back and look at where we have been as a nation and where we are going. A lot of what we put into this building should reflect not only our history but our values as a nation.

That is why I, in the past, have advocated very strongly for certain statues to be removed. I think it is important now that we have both parties looking at this.

As my colleague from North Carolina mentioned, Taney and the Dred Scott decision, I think it was during a time period when Democratic President Andrew Jackson nominated his bust to be put in the Capitol here today.

Now, it can't be overstated how much this body and this country condemn the institution of slavery. I believe, as a whole, this Nation has done that and continues to do that.

In fact, when I was in the Georgia legislature, I realized that Georgia was the sole State of the former Confederacy that had not officially condemned the act of slavery nor had condemned its participation in slavery

during these dark periods of our Nation. So, I introduced legislation called the Freedom Resolution, which would formally acknowledge the ills, the hatred, and this dark period of our Nation that our government, our State government, the State that I love, was actually engaged in.

That was a very painful time in our history, but we learned from that history. I don't think anyone wants to forget that time period, else we will repeat that in some shape, form, or fashion.

As I said, it is important that the statues that we have here reflect the values of this Nation. In fact, I was very vocal many times in the past over one of Georgia's two statues here, Alexander Stephens. To say he was a racist was an understatement. As was mentioned, his ``Cornerstone Address,'' as we read it today, is just wrought with the idea that all men are not created equal.

In fact, he was very condemning of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. He even went as far as illustrating that they were insane because of our founding documents being built upon a false premise, and that false premise was the idea that God created all of us equal. He went on to say that God didn't create us equal. He went on to say that White people were superior and that that is why we have the institution of slavery, and it should be preserved.

Those are not ideas that are commensurate with what we believe in this Nation. But it was during a time period where many of the Old South, Democrat-led houses and senates and statue commissions, were trying to hold on to those old ideas and principles that our party--the party of emancipation was brought up, Abraham Lincoln. We have been opposed to these ideas. We totally wrapped our arms around this idea that all men are created equal, that we are all given equal opportunity, that all life is important, that everyone is created in the eyes of God, and that this government exists to protect those freedoms and those liberties.

But there were those in the Democrat-controlled Southern States who wanted to hold on to the old ideas, those ideas that Alexander Stephens espoused. That is why, in Georgia, the Democrat-led commission wanted to poke their finger in the eyes of the Federal Government, and they nominated or placed as statues these people who held ideas different than what we hold as a party over here, what we hold as a nation today.

My opposition to this bill isn't because of the goal that we are trying to achieve, but it is the way that the majority continues to skirt procedure in this body for the second consecutive Congress. This bill was rushed to the floor without a hearing or a markup in the Committee on House Administration.

I am sure we will hear from my colleagues on the other side that Republicans are insincere in our opposition to slavery and dragging our feet when it comes to removing these statues. In fact, it was a Republican, a good friend of mine in the State legislature, Scot Turner, who in 2020 introduced legislation that he knew I supported, and I came out publicly supporting, to remove Stephens' statue and replace it with a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr.

The States have begun to take action. As we talked about, North Carolina has already taken action to remove their statues and replace them. But I am very concerned about this committee.

In fact, the Joint Committee on the Library, the committee responsible for facilitating the removal of statues approved by State legislatures, was only organized last week. Now, this is 6 months from the start of the 117th Congress. I have been on the Joint Committee on the Library, and I was very excited the first year I was appointed to the Joint Committee on the Library because, as a fan of the Library of Congress, I thought this would be a great opportunity to participate in preserving the history and heritage of this Nation.

But of the three terms that I have been on the committee, from my recollection, the committee has only met three times, and that was an organizational meeting each time. It is hard to do your work when you don't even get together to do the work.

The lack of urgency to organize the committee is reason for enough concern. Even more disappointing is our failure to address several approved statue replacement requests from State legislatures.

In October 2015, the State of North Carolina began the process of switching out the statue of Charles Brantley Aycock with the Reverend Billy Graham. Now, this passed the North Carolina House 71-28, a bipartisan vote, and in the Senate, 44-0, a unanimous vote in the North Carolina Senate. Yet, we still have not taken action on approving that for a man who definitely had a very strong impact not only on civil rights but on our Nation as a whole, who we so respect that his body laid in the rotunda not too long ago. Yet, we still have not been able to move on getting that done, as well as several other States.

I believe that we need to focus our efforts on changing this process because I think it would mean a whole lot more, a whole lot more to this body as well as to the American people if the States who originally put those statues in here were the ones that now asked that they would be removed. I think that would be much more appropriate than this body taking action. If we reformed our process to make it where the States could actually do it, it would mean a whole lot more to the future of our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), my good friend and the leader of the Republicans here in the House.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the very passionate words that we have heard here today. And as I said in the beginning, we on this side of the aisle not only agree, but we have been advocating for these very things for quite some time.

In fact, as far as Georgia's statue, I have advocated in times past for the removal of Alexander Stephens' statue--it has been on several occasions that I have spoken about this--and let me just share with you this one idea, this principle, the criticism that he made of our Founders, because he believed that our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were inherently flawed. This is what Stephens said. ``The prevailing ideas entertained by him,'' meaning Jefferson, ``and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution''--talking about the Constitution we have today because he was advocating for the Confederate Constitution--``were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.'' And we agree with that.

What he is saying is the flaw of our Founders was that they believed this idea that all men are created equal, and they put that in our founding documents.

The reason I bring that up today is because of something that the minority leader said, which is that under critical race theory they are teaching that our founding documents were the opposite, and more that they were what Alexander Stephens was saying they were, that they are flawed, that they teach racism. But Alexander Stephens was taking the opposite approach, and he says they weren't teaching racism, that is why they are flawed.

This is why I have advocated a long time for the removal of Stephens' statue. In fact, as I was speaking about this at one time, my family and I received a threat from the Ku Klux Klan in Georgia, because I adamantly believe that we are all created equal and we are all given the same opportunities in this Nation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, prior to the organizing of the current Joint Committee on the Library, Ranking Member Rodney Davis and I sent a letter to the Joint Committee on the Library to demand immediate action on North Carolina's pending request to replace the statue of Charles Brantley Aycock with the statue of Reverend Billy Graham.

So far, the request has been ignored, but I can only assume it was because it would impede the ability to do what we are doing here today. But I am encouraged by the chair's commitment to act on that very quickly.

I would also say that this isn't an isolated case. There are currently eight States with pending requests, including Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Kansas, North Carolina, Nebraska, Utah, and Virginia.

In fact, Georgia has just introduced in this last session a new piece of legislation to remove Stephens' statue with that of the late Representative John Lewis, which is receiving bipartisan support. In fact, the Republican Speaker of the House is the top cosponsor of that legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Madam Speaker, it is refreshing to know that there is so much we actually do agree on in this Chamber, because the things that my good friend from Texas just said, we agree on, and we have agreed on since Abraham Lincoln was the President.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my good friend, who is also the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, to the gentlewoman from California, I am prepared to close if she is. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the members of the North Carolina delegation that was written to the Joint Committee on the Library encouraging them to move quickly on their request to replace the Aycock statue with that of Billy Graham.

Congress of the United States

Washington, DC, June 29, 2021.

Hon. Zoe Lofgren,

Chairperson,

Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.

Hon. Amy Klobuchar,

Ranking Member,

Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.

Chairperson Lofgren and Ranking Member Klobuchar: We write

today to encourage the Joint Committee of Congress on the

Library's (JCL) expeditious approval of the North Carolina

General Assembly's request to replace the State's current

statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection. Since 2015,

North Carolina has worked to replace one of its current

statues, which depicts Charles Brantley Aycock, an individual

associated with white supremacy, with one of the late

Reverend William Franklin ``Billy'' Graham, Jr. Despite North

Carolina's diligent efforts in coordination with the

Architect of the Capitol (AOC) and past Joint Committees on

the Library, the statue of Aycock remains.

On October 2, 2015, the North Carolina General Assembly

passed Session Law 2015-269; HB 540, ``An Act Requesting the

Joint Committee on the Library of Congress to Approve the

Replacement of the Statue of Charles Brantley Aycock in

National Statuary Hall with the Statue of the Reverend

William Franklin ``Billy'' Graham, Jr.'' This legislation

passed the North Carolina House with bipartisan support and

passed the North Carolina Senate unanimously.

In February 2018, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper and

Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest sent letters to the AOC in

support of the General Assembly's request.

On July 29, 2020, the North Carolina Legislature's Statuary

Hall Selection Committee unanimously approved the design of

the Rev. Graham statue.

According to the AOC, North Carolina's request continues to

await JCL approval to proceed to step five of the ten-step

replacement process. Now, over six months into the 117th

Congress, JCL's delayed organization continues to hinder

North Carolina's wishes to remove a white supremacist's

statue from the Capitol.

We implore the JCL to honor the will of the people of North

Carolina by moving immediately to complete its work on North

Carolina's request and to stand ready to assist as needed in

order to ensure the State's wishes are finally realized

without further delay.

Sincerely,

Patrick McHenry.

Virginia Foxx.

Richard Hudson.

Ted Budd.

David Rouzer.

Dan Bishop.

Gregory F. Murphy, M.D.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the official 10- step Architect of the Capitol statue removal and replacement process.

This process was established in the 2000 omnibus and further defined in 2014 and requires coordination between the State, the Architect of the Capitol, and the Joint Committee on the Library. All requests for statue replacements begin in State legislatures and is then communicated to the Architect of the Capitol who then manages the communication of the request to the JCL for approval through the process.

Architect of the Capitol

January 2014.

Procedure and Guidelines for Replacement of Statues in the National

Statuary Hall Collection

The creation of the National Statuary Hall Collection was

authorized by the United States Congress in 1864 to allow

each State to provide two statues of notable citizens for

display in the United States Capitol. The Joint Committee on

the Library of Congress has oversight of the collection, and,

under the committee's direction, the Architect of the Capitol

(AOC) is responsible for the reception, placement, and care

of the statues.

In accordance with legislation enacted in 2000, ``Any State

may request the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress to

approve the replacement of a statue the State has provided

for display in Statuary Hall'' under two conditions:

(A) the request has been approved by a resolution adopted

by the legislature of the State and the request has been

approved by the Governor of the State, and

(B) the statue to be replaced has been displayed in the

Capitol of the United States for at least 10 years as of the

time the request is made, except that the Joint Committee may

waive this requirement for cause at the request of a State.

Steps in the Procedure

1. Responsibilities of the State. The State legislature

enacts a resolution that identifies the statue to be

replaced, names the individual to be newly commemorated and

cites his or her qualifications, selects a committee or

commission to represent the State in selecting the sculptor,

and directs the method of obtaining the necessary funds to

carry the resolution into effect. Expenditures for which the

State is responsible include the cost of paying the sculptor

for designing and carving or casting the statue; designing

and fabricating the pedestal; transporting the statue and

pedestal to the United States Capitol; removing and

transporting the replaced statue; temporarily erecting the

new statue on its pedestal in the location approved for the

unveiling ceremony; certain

expenses related to the unveiling ceremony; and any other

expenses that the State commission may find it necessary to

incur.

2. Request to Replace a Statue. A duly authorized State

official, typically the governor, shall submit to the

Architect of the Capitol a written request to provide a new

statue, a description of the location in the State where the

replaced statue will be displayed after it is transferred,

and a copy of the applicable enacted State legislation

authorizing the replacement. The Architect of the Capitol

will review the request for completeness and will forward it

to the Joint Committee on the Library.

3. Joint Committee on the Library Action. The Joint

Committee on the Library will approve or deny the request.

4. Agreement Regarding Replacement. If the request is

approved by the Joint Committee on the Library, the Architect

of the Capitol will formalize an agreement with the State to

guide the process. The agreement consists of the State's

commitment to follow the guidelines for the design and

fabrication of statues (see below) and to take responsibility

for any cost related to the design, construction,

transportation, and placement of the new statue; the removal

and transportation of the statue being replaced; and any

unveiling ceremony. The agreement is between the Architect of

the Capitol and the State. If the State authorizes a

commission, foundation, or other entity to act upon its

behalf in subsequent parts of the process, the governor must

so notify the Architect of the Capitol in writing.

5. Approval of Maquette. The State or its representative

shall submit to the Architect of the Capitol, for review and

final approval by the Joint Committee on the Library,

photographs of the maquette from all four sides and the

proposed dimensions of the completed statue.

6. Approval of Full-Size Clay Model and Pedestal Design,

Including Proposed Inscription. The State shall submit to the

Architect of the Capitol, for review and final approval by

the Joint Committee on the Library, photographs of the model

from all four sides, dimensions, engineering drawings of the

pedestal, the anticipated weight of the completed statue and

pedestal, and the text of any proposed inscriptions. Any

structural, safety, and design concerns will need to be

addressed before final approval.

7. Approval of Completed Statue, Cast in Bronze or Carved

in Marble, and Completed Pedestal. The State shall submit to

the Architect of the Capitol, for review and final approval

by the Joint Committee on the Library, photographs of the

completed statue and pedestal from all four sides,

dimensions, the final weight, and the text of any

inscriptions.

8. Ceremony and Program. The holding of an unveiling

ceremony is optional. Permission to use the Rotunda or

Emancipation Hall must be granted by concurrent resolution of

the Congress, and legislation by the Congress is required to

authorize printing of the proceedings at government expense.

The State may contact its delegation in Congress for

assistance and for introduction of the required legislation.

Although no law requires the Congress to accept statues by

formal resolution, it is recommended that acceptance of the

statue by the Congress be included in the legislation

introduced for the use the Rotunda or Emancipation Hall for

the unveiling ceremony.

The State must arrange the program for the ceremony with

the Speaker of the House, who will ensure that congressional

participation is bipartisan and bicameral and that the

program concludes in a reasonable time. The Architect of the

Capitol provides support for any unveiling ceremony.

9. Statue Removal/Installation and Ownership Transfer. The

State must arrange for a rigger approved by the Architect of

the Capitol to remove the replaced statue and install the

replacement statue in the location of its unveiling. This

work must be coordinated with the Architect of the Capitol.

The replaced statue must be removed shortly before the new

statue is brought into the Capitol. Before the replaced

statue is removed, a document transferring ownership of that

statue from the federal government to the State will be

signed by the designated State official.

10. Permanent Location. The permanent location for the

replacement statue will be approved by the Joint Committee on

the Library. The National Statuary Hall collection is located

in several areas of the Capitol: National Statuary Hall (the

Old Hall of the House), the Rotunda, the second-floor House

and Senate corridors, the Hall of Columns, the Crypt, and the

Capitol Visitor Center.

The Architect of the Capitol will make recommendations for

placement of the new statue with the least possible

disruption to previously placed statues while maintaining a

harmonious arrangement. To assist in developing this

recommendation, the agency's structural engineer will

determine whether the floor in any proposed location can

safely support the weight of the statue. If the replacement

statue is suitable in weight and dimensions, it will normally

take the place of the replaced statue. If not, the Architect

of the Capitol will, upon the approval of the Joint Committee

on the Library and with the advice of the Commission of Fine

Arts as requested, relocate statues within the Capitol.

If necessary, after the statue has been unveiled, the

Architect of the Capitol will be responsible for moving it to

the permanent location approved by the Joint Committee on the

Library.

Guidelines for Replacement Statues

The guidelines below are provided for reference only; they

may be modified in particular cases by the Joint Committee on

the Library. Images of the one hundred statues now in the

collection are available at the Architect of the Capitol

website (www.aoc.gov).

Subject. The subject of the statue must be a deceased

person who was a citizen of the United States and is

illustrious for historic renown or for distinguished civic or

military services. Statues may represent only one individual

(ruling adopted by the Joint Committee on the Library at

meeting of March 13, 1950). Statues should represent the full

length.

Material. The statue must be made of marble or bronze.

Replacement statues made of the same material as the replaced

statue are preferred. Materials from domestic sources,

including, as applicable, sources in the territories and

possessions of the United States, are preferred.

Pedestal. To reduce weight, the Architect of the Capitol

recommends that the pedestal be made of a hollow steel frame

faced in granite or other stone or be made of bronze. It is

recommended that the pedestal be designed and constructed

with a removable panel (usually in the back) to allow

access to attachment bolts. The pedestal design,

dimensions, and weight must be submitted to the Architect

of the Capitol for review.

Inscriptions. Inscriptions on the pedestal should include

the name of the State and of the individual represented. The

preferred option is that inscriptions be carved.

Alternatively, they can be raised or cast on a bronze plaque.

It is traditional and preferred that inscriptions be simple

and that they appear only on the front of the pedestal. The

proposed inscription should be submitted for review and

approval by the Joint Committee on the Library as part of the

pedestal design.

Size and Weight. In general, the figure in the replacement

statue should be over life size, with a height between seven

and eight feet, and the total height, including the pedestal,

no greater than eleven feet. Within that size range, the

combined weight of a bronze statue and its pedestal should

not exceed 5,000 pounds; a marble statue and its pedestal

should weigh no more than 10,000 pounds.

Patina and Coating. For bronze statues, the selected patina

and coating must be easily maintained and repaired. Formulas

for the patinating and coating materials must be provided to

the Architect of the Capitol for use during future

maintenance.

Other Considerations. The statue and pedestal should not be

a potential source of safety hazards. They should not have

any protruding or sharp element that could cause harm or be

an obstacle for persons in the building.

Relevant Legislation

The law creating National Statuary Hall is the act of July

2, 1864 (2 U.S.C. Sec. 2131) (formerly 40 U.S.C. 187), which

established that each State had the right to donate

``statues, in marble or bronze, not exceeding two in number

for each State, of deceased persons who have been citizens

thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or for

distinguished civic or military services . . . .''

This law was modified in 2000 by Sec. 311 of H.R. 5657

(included by reference in H.R. 4577) and established as law

by P.L. 106-554, which provides that ``Any state may request

the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress to approve the

replacement of a statue the State has provided for display in

Statuary Hall in the Capitol of the United States . . . .'' 2

U.S.C. Sec. 2132.

Supervision and direction of the collection are assigned to

the Architect of the Capitol by the act of August 15, 1876

(19 Stat. 147), 2 U.S.C. Sec. 2131.

With the approval of the congressional Joint Committee on

the Library, the Architect of the Capitol is responsible for

the reception and location of the statues in this collection,

first established by H. Con. Res. 47, agreed to February 24,

1933, and included in P.L. 106-554. 2 U.S.C. Sec. 2132.

Excerpt From Public Law 106-554

Sec. 311. (a)(1) Any State may request the Joint Committee

on the Library of Congress to approve the replacement of a

statue the State has provided for display in Statuary Hall in

the Capitol of the United States under section 1814 of the

Revised Statutes (40 U.S.C. 187).

(2) A request shall be considered under paragraph (1) only

if--

(A) the request has been approved by a resolution adopted

by the legislature of the State and the request has been

approved by the Governor of the State, and

(B) the statue to be replaced has been displayed in the

Capitol of the United States for at least 10 years as of the

time the request is made, except that the Joint Committee may

waive this requirement for cause at the request of a State.

(b) If the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress

approves a request under subsection (a), the Architect of the

Capitol shall enter into an agreement with the State to carry

out the replacement in accordance with the request and any

conditions the Joint Committee may require for its approval.

Such agreement shall provide that--

(1) the new statue shall be subject to the same conditions

and restrictions as apply to any statue provided by a State

under section 1814 of the Revised Statutes (40 U.S.C. 187),

and

(2) the State shall pay any costs related to the

replacement, including costs in connection with the design,

construction, transportation, and placement of the new

statue, the removal and transportation of the statue being

replaced, and any unveiling ceremony.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to permit

a State to have more than two statues on display in the

Capitol of the United States.

(d) (1) Subject to the approval of the Joint Committee on

the Library, ownership of any statue replaced under this

section shall be transferred to the State.

(2) If any statue is removed from the Capitol of the United

States as part of a transfer of ownership under paragraph

(1), then it may not be returned to the Capitol for display

unless such display is specifically authorized by Federal

law.

(e) The Architect of the Capitol, upon the approval of the

Joint Committee on the Library and with the advice of the

Commission of Fine Arts as requested, is authorized and

directed to relocate within the United States Capitol any of

the statues received from the States under section 1814 of

the Revised Statutes (40 U.S.C. 187) prior to the date of the

enactment of this Act, and to provide for the reception,

location, and relocation of the statues received hereafter

from the States under such section.

Madam Speaker, I have a document which is the chart of every State's request that is currently in the process of getting a statue replaced.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a timeline of the Joint Committee on the Library's organization for this Congress, including the minutes of the first JCL organizing meeting.

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, June 29, 2021.

Submission for the Record

Timeline of Joint Committee of Congress on the Library Organization for

the 117th Congress of the United States

On January 3, 2021, the 117th Congress had its opening day.

On April 16, 2021, the House of Representatives passed H.

Res. 321, Electing Members to the Joint Committee of Congress

on the Library and the Joint Committee on Printing.

On May 26, 2021, the U.S. Senate passed S. Res. 244, A

resolution providing for members on the part of the Senate of

the Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint Committee of

Congress on the Library.

On June 23, the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library

gaveled into session around 4:00 p.m.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to the Joint Committee on the Library Chair Lofgren requesting organization consideration of North Carolina's statue and reopening of the U.S. Botanic Garden.

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, June 17, 2021.

Hon. Zoe Lofgren,

Chairperson, Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC.

Chairperson Lofgren: More than six months have passed since

the start of the 117th Congress, and it is our understanding

that the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library (JCL)

will officially organize next week. We are looking forward to

the JCL's first official action this year as there are

pressing issues before the Joint Committee demanding our

immediate attention.

We encourage the following items be considered as some of

the JCL's first orders of business:

Reopening of the U.S. Botanic Garden (USBG). The Joint

Committee's delayed organization has directly affected the

public's access to one of the Capitol campus' main

attractions, the U.S. Botanic Garden, which to this day

remains closed awaiting permission from the JCL to re-welcome

visitors. We must take up this matter of business

immediately, as the USBG's reopening plans and executive

leadership team have informed oversight stakeholders of the

campus' readiness for safe and immediate reopening.

Consideration of the request by the State of North

Carolina. The State of North Carolina is anxiously awaiting

JCL's action on its request for the removal and replacement

of one of the state's contributions to the National Statuary

Hall Collection. Already years into this process, the request

is awaiting JCL approval and the Architect of the Capitol is

ready to partner with us to move the process along.

As members of the Joint Committee, we stand ready to get to

work, while upholding the long tradition of bipartisanship

and bicameralism. As the incoming Chairperson, we encourage

you to add the above items to the agenda of the JCL's first

organizing meeting so that we can begin to address these

pressing issues.

Sincerely,

Rodney Davis,

Ranking Member,

Committee on House Administration.

Barry Loudermilk,

Member,

Committee on House Administration.

Madam Speaker, I have a readout from the House Rules Committee meeting on H.R. 3005 recorded June 28, 2021, at which time the Joint Committee on the Library chair, Zoe Lofgren, announced her approval of the Kansas longstanding request to update their contribution to be a statue of Amelia Earhart, and I thank the Congresswoman Lofgren for taking that direction.

Madam Speaker, I have the official collection of correspondence from the State of Kansas to the Architect of the Capitol that informs them where Kansas is in the 10-step replacement process.

Madam Speaker, that process began 22 years ago in 1999, and I thank you for your indulgence with that.

Madam Speaker, I just want to reiterate that there is much that was said here today that we are in agreement with. Something that the esteemed majority leader said I think needs to be reemphasized and is again the reason why I have adamantly fought to replace the statue of Stephens, the Georgia statue of Alexander Stephens, because of his criticism of our Founders.

His criticism was that they truly believed those ideas that were written in our Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. In fact, he said that that was the flaw of our Nation.

That is why they rebelled against this Nation; that we should go back to those original principles and have people here that honor the idea that God in His infinite ability, created all of us and He created us all with value, equal value regardless of skin color, regardless of age, regardless of any other factor; that we are all created in His divine wisdom and given life, and life can be so abundant if we just hold on to these ideas and principles. And those statues that we have in this Capitol should reflect those values, and I can think of no one that reflects those values more than the Reverend Billy Graham.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the General Assembly of North Carolina bill requesting that the statues be replaced.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I am glad to be back.

Madam Speaker, I have been out for 2 weeks, and now that I have a new knee, I am good for another 20 years. That is what they tell me. They guarantee me that.

Madam Speaker, when I brought this bill to the floor just about a year ago, I referred to our Capitol Building as a sacred space for democracy, a symbol around the world of democracy. The intervening months have shown us, in ways we could not have imagined then, just how true that statement was and is.

Sadly, we in this House, our colleagues in the Senate, all who work here, experienced on January 6 a wrenching reminder of how democracy demands our eternal defense and vigilance. We watched our temple of democracy defiled by a violent mob of insurrectionists. For many of us here, that was a watershed moment, seeing such evils pervade the halls of the American Capitol.

However, Madam Speaker, for African Americans, who have been serving here, working here, and visiting here for many decades, that sense of defilement of this sacred space is all too familiar for them.

Our colleague, the former speaker of the California Assembly, Karen Bass, made that clear when she spoke. When they see individuals like John Calhoun, Charles Aycock, and James Paul Clarke celebrated in stone and bronze in these halls, they are reminded that, for so much of our history, the leaders and leading institutions of our government and country did not view them as equal or, at times, even human.

When they enter the solemn Old Supreme Court Chamber and stare into the cold marble eyes of Roger Brooke Taney, they are reminded that, at one time, the highest court in our land declared that Black lives did not matter.

Mr. Speaker, we ought not be surprised when our fellow citizens of color raise signs that say: No, America, Black lives do matter. That is somewhat what this debate is about.

In the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision written by Justice Taney, a distinguished citizen of Maryland revered in his time for his intellect and his accomplishments, Taney, in this terrible decision, quoted the Declaration of Independence, which all of us quote so often: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'' Today, we would say all men and women are equal, irrespective of color.

But this Dred Scott decision ought to teach us a lesson today. It ought to humble us today. When people around us say, ``Boy, that is the right decision,'' because it happens to be the decision of the moment, not a decision of history.

Beneath those lines, Taney wrote these: ``The general words,'' that is, that all men are created equal, ``The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family.'' Hear me, colleagues. This is Taney speaking in a decision where he is about to say Black lives do not matter.

He said, however, that it ``would seem to embrace the whole human family,'' not divided by color or gender or nationality or religion, the whole human race. And he went on to say: ``And if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood.'' I want you to think about that.

I want you to think about it, colleagues, with humility. Frankly, I want those who argue for the originalist point of view to think of that. Taney thought of that. And he thought, in his day, in 1857, the whole human family would be covered by ``all men are created equal.''

But notwithstanding that belief, he did not so rule because he was mired in the past, and the progress of those some 90 years had alluded him because he went on to say: But ``the enslaved African race were not intended to be included and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this Declaration.'' An originalist.

The Founders were human. They were extraordinary humans, but they were human. Their environment shaped their thoughts, as they do ours.

Taney's words were used by the Confederacy during the Civil War to justify the creation of a regime built to sustain the enslavement of African Americans in perpetuity, with no possibility of recognizing their humanity.

Even though Taney said that in 1857, that would have been the popular definition of all men are created equal, Blacks and Whites alike.

And those words have been used ever since by bigots and white supremacists to justify segregation, racial violence, and discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my fellow colleagues that we must not allow the author of those words to hold a place of honor in our Capitol. That is why I introduced this legislation along with Representative Barbara Lee; my dear friend of over a half a century, Jim Clyburn; Representative Karen Bass, former Speaker of the California Assembly; Chairman Bennie Thompson from Mississippi; and Representative G. K. Butterfield a North Carolina former Supreme Court Justice; and the present chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congresswoman Joyce Beatty from Ohio.

Because this building, this sacred space, this temple of democracy has been defiled for too long. We owe it not to forget history. We must learn from history. But we ought not to honor that which defiled the principles for which we think we stand and for which I think we do stand.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, to remove those symbols of slavery, segregation, and sedition from these Halls. How recently we saw, remembered the savage genocide in Tulsa just a few weeks ago, justified in the minds of many, I am sure, that these, after all, were not men who were created equal. They were not children created in the image of God. And therefore, some rationalized the taking of their lives because, after all, their lives did not matter, and therefore, no one was prosecuted, no one was held accountable.

As I said, Roger Brooke Taney was from my State of Maryland, and I acknowledge, as I was growing up as a kid in the late 1950s in high school and then in college in the 1960s, my party was the segregationist party. And my party decided that we did not want to be that party and that there was not a home for segregationists in the Democratic Party. That is a decision we made consciously, knowing full well the cost and that is why Lyndon Johnson said when he signed one of the civil rights bills: We may have just given up the South.

In our State capital of Annapolis, Mr. Speaker, we removed the statue of Chief Justice Taney, the highest ranking Marylander in the Federal Government in history. It had stood there when I was sworn in as a member of the State Senate. And when I listened to Governor Agnew give his State of the Union, it was on the site of the

Roger Brooke Taney statue on the east front of our Capitol.

If you turn and walk west through the Capitol of Maryland, you will come out on a park. It is the Thurgood Marshall Park, a testament to the progress and enlightenment that occurred from Taney to Marshall in our State.

The decision to remove Taney's statue was long overdue, but as the gentleman from Texas said Martin Luther King said: It is never too late to do the right thing. And this, today, is the right thing. It reflects our growth as a State as we have confronted the most difficult parts of our history and it will reflect our growth as we recognize it here, as we did overwhelmingly when we passed this last year. Over a third of my Republican colleagues joined the Democratic colleagues in saying Black lives do, in fact, matter.

Those who say we shouldn't teach about slavery or that we should sweep it under the rug or that we should skip over the lines in our Constitution that reference it, do a disservice to our understanding of America's greatness.

Jim Clyburn, our whip, a civil rights hero in his own right, likes to quote de Tocqueville saying that America's greatness is not that it always does the right thing. America's greatness is that it is willing to correct its wrongs. We are great because we approach our past with humility and openness. And we are great because we continue to protect our democracy through more inclusion, more tolerance, more justice, more equality, that all men and women, irrespective of artificial distinctions or real distinctions, are equal in the eyes of our Constitution and of our laws.

That is why Democrats and Republicans came together earlier this month to make Juneteenth a national holiday, overwhelmingly, a handful voting against that, in an articulation of our principles today, not yesterday. That was Roger Brooke Taney's great blindness. That is why I believe we can take this important step together today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House once again to join me in passing this legislation, to remove these statues and bust of Chief Justice Taney from the Capitol. Not to forget them. Not to say they weren't part of history, but they are not deserving of our honor. Not because we want to erase history but because we are determined to confront it.

As a Marylander, proud of steps we have taken in Annapolis, I believe that Justice Thurgood Marshall would be a far better ambassador for the greatness of American democracy and for our State of Maryland than Roger Brooke Taney. Where Roger Brooke Taney represents the worst of American justice and racism, Thurgood Marshall represents the best of justice and equality. He deserves to be honored in this Capitol for his trailblazing career and lifelong dedication to civil rights and equal justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans who believe we are a special, exceptional country because we lift up the individual and we protect the 1 against the 99 if the 1 is right. That is the essence of America. And even though they did not live it out perfectly, they articulated the perfection of all men are created equal. And endowed not by the Constitution, not by the laws of Congress, not by the majority vote of their fellow citizens, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

That is what this vote is about today, and I urge my colleagues, vote ``yes'' for America, vote ``yes'' for its principles that are so respected properly around the world.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 504, I call up the bill (H.R. 3005) to direct the Joint Committee on the Library to replace the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol with a bust of Thurgood Marshall to be obtained by the Joint Committee on the Library and to remove certain statues from areas of the United States Capitol which are accessible to the public, to remove all statues of individuals who voluntarily served the Confederate States of America from display in the United States Capitol, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It directs the Joint Committee on the Library to replace the bust of Chief Justice Roger Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber with a bust of Justice Thurgood Marshall. It also directs the removal of statues and busts of individuals who served the Confederacy, and other white supremacists.

The United States Capitol is a beacon of democracy, freedom, and equality, visited by millions of people each year before COVID hit, and soon we hope to be visited by millions of people again. What and who we choose to honor in this building must represent our values.

Chief Justice Taney, who, in the Dred Scott decision, declared that African Americans could never be citizens of the United States and had no constitutional rights, does not meet this standard; and neither do the white supremacists and Confederates we continue to honor with statues today.

Justice Taney's decision continued and permitted the expansion of slavery. Those who founded, served, and fought for the Confederacy were willing to spill American blood in defense of it.

In his infamous Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that slavery and white supremacy were the cornerstone of the Confederacy.

There is no shortage of American figures like Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court, more deserving of the honor of being displayed in our Capitol.

There are some who argue that this action is an attempt to erase and forget our history. Nothing could be further from the truth. We must never forget our Nation's shameful periods of slavery, segregation, and racism.

This is, instead, about who we choose to honor, who we choose to literally put on the pedestal and display as emblematic of our values.

We are just months removed from January 6, when a mob of insurrectionists looking to violently overturn a Presidential election stormed this very building. During that awful attack, the same Confederate flag carried into battle against the United States in the 19th century was again carried into battle against the United States and into this very Capitol.

It is long past time to remove from a place of honor in our Nation's Capitol the statues and busts of those who favored war against the United States in support of the so-called government founded on a cornerstone of racism and white supremacy.

Outside the Old Supreme Court Chamber, before you get to the Taney bust, you pass another sculpture, which depicts the figures of History and Justice. Today, we can demonstrate to the Nation and the world that we have learned from our history and we continue to pursue justice.

Put another way, we can follow the advice of the great American poet and civil rights activist Maya Angelou. This is what she said: ``Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.''

Let us now show ourselves and the world that we are who we claim to be. Let us do better.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3005, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from North Carolina, I would like to correct the record. The Joint Committee on the Library organized last Wednesday. Until last Wednesday, the Joint Committee was chaired by Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a Republican Senator, and I have now been chair for 6 days and hope to act promptly on the North Carolina matter.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), the distinguished chair of the Election Subcommittee in the House Administration Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, before yielding, I just want to note, for purposes of clarifying the historical record, that the Republicans of the 19th century and the early 20th century bear almost no resemblance to the Republican Party of today. Similarly, the Democratic Party bears no resemblance to the Democratic Party of the 19th and early 20th centuries. They are the same parties in name only.

In the 19th century, the Republicans were generally the party of the northerners, and the Democrats were the party of the South, and that has switched.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip. We are so lucky to have as our whip someone who started his public service as a fighter for civil rights. Like our colleague, the late John Lewis, our whip put his life on the line for civil rights and for voting rights.

Madam Speaker, just a note of the process. In fact, Arkansas is now selecting an artist to develop the Bates statue that has to be approved before we can proceed. Meanwhile, even though they want to get rid of that statue, it stays here. If we pass this bill, the statue will be gone while Arkansas pursues a replacement.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), my colleague, a member of the Committee on House Administration, and a scholar and former constitutional law professor.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.

Well, the other speakers we are expecting I think are caught up in a long appropriations markup, so you may proceed. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Just a couple of clarifications because I think it may be confusing to the general public hearing about what is really a rather arcane process for States to add and remove statues.

The Joint Committee on the Library ultimately approves it, but the process is driven by the States, the Architect of the Capitol does all of the heavy lifting, looking at the statues, making sure that the replacement statue meets the engineering requirements and the like. I would just like to note that until last Wednesday, Senator Roy Blunt was chair of the Joint Committee on the Library, and I have been chair of the Joint Committee on the Library now for 6 days.

In that time, I actually have approved the reopening of the Botanical Gardens. I have approved the replacement of the Kansas statue that I received the letter on Friday. And I have just received the information on North Carolina, and I plan to work on that very hard and, hopefully, very promptly get a decision.

So I don't think that speaks to undue delay in the 6 days that I have been chair of the Joint Committee on the Library.

I do think it is important that we take the step to remove these Confederates and segregationists and pro-slavery statues from our Statuary Hall. In some cases, States have either started the steps to remove them. But while that process is ongoing, these individuals are on a pedestal. And we cannot forget our history, but we don't have to put segregationists and pro-slavery historical figures on a pedestal. We don't honor them, although we do remember them.

So let's adopt this measure to deal with those statues.

But there is another thing. There are situations such as the statue of Justice Taney that were not sent here by any State, and only we can remove them expeditiously. We have said, and we have heard from people more eloquent than I about why Justice Taney should not be honored.

In 1865, a few years before the Taney bust was ultimately commissioned, the Senate debated it. They debated whether to commission the bust of Justice Taney for the Supreme Court room. And during that debate, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts said this: ``I object to that; that now an emancipated country should make a bust to the author of the Dred Scott decision. Judgment is beginning now; and an emancipated country will fasten upon him the stigma which he deserves.''

Now, it may have taken longer than Senator Sumner envisioned, in fact, 156 years to attach the stigma that belongs to Justice Taney, but we will attach that stigma today if we pass this bill.

In closing, I just want to say that all of us are here for a few years. Some longer, some shorter, but we are just here for a little slice of history. And I feel fortunate that my little slice of history allowed me to be here the same time as the late John Lewis. I can almost imagine him standing here on the floor. How fortunate I am to have served with him. And how fortunate I am to serve with our majority whip, Mr. Clyburn, who put his body on the line to fight against segregation and to fight for voting rights. They are leaders of our country. I am proud to serve with them. Let's show how much we honor them by voting for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and my friend on the Committee on House Administration for running this debate for our side.

Madam Speaker, despite its flaws, I intend to vote for the underlying bill. But, nevertheless, I rise to highlight several points the majority has failed to address.

It has been 6 years--6 years--since the people of North Carolina, through their elected State legislature, requested on a bipartisan basis to replace the State statue of Charles Brantley Aycock, a former Democrat Governor of that State, who supported segregation and white supremacy.

The people of North Carolina have requested to replace the statue with a sculpture of the late Reverend Billy Graham, a worthy North Carolinian respected and beloved by millions.

Even the Speaker of the House has had many kind words for Reverend Graham, only the fourth American ever to lie in honor in the U.S. Capitol.

In a press release dated February 21, 2018, the Speaker said in part the following: ``Reverend Graham's leadership and firm partnership with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., were vital in the fight for civil rights in the South. His counsel to U.S. Presidents, regardless of party, brought grace and humility into our politics.''

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the entire press release.

Pelosi Statement on the Passing of the Reverend Billy Graham

(February 21, 2018, Press Release)

San Francisco--Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued this

statement today on the passing of the Reverend Billy Graham:

``Today, millions around the world grieve the loss of the

Reverend Billy Graham. His clarion message of fellowship and

faith lifted and inspired countless members of the Christian

community.

``Reverend Graham's leadership and firm partnership with

the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were vital in the

fight for civil rights in the South. His counsel to U.S.

Presidents, regardless of party, brought grace and humility

into our politics. In moments of crisis, from terrorist

attacks to horrific natural disasters, Americans roiled by

tragedy and turmoil looked to Reverend Graham for solace.

``May it bring comfort to William, Nelson, Virginia, Anne,

Ruth and the entire Graham family that so many around the

world share in their sorrow at this time.''

Madam Speaker, I agree with the Speaker's remarks. Reverend Graham was vital in the fight for civil rights in the South.

So, today, I ask: Why are we still having this conversation 6 years later? Why do the Democrats continue to delay States' efforts, like North Carolina and Arkansas, to replace the statues in question that are currently at the Capitol? Why do Democrats delay action, keeping these statues of known racist Democrats in this building?

Democrats have done nothing on any statue for the past 6 months, leaving statues of segregationists, known racists, and other Confederate Democrats in our Capitol.

As an aside, we know this process shouldn't take this long. Kansas, which has no statues in question in the underlying bill, has been waiting 22 years to put a statue of Amelia Earhart in the Capitol.

Just yesterday, the chair of the Joint Committee on the Library, a Democrat, signed the paperwork in about 30 seconds when pressed on it, despite waiting over 6 months to organize the Joint Committee on the Library this Congress.

It is clear that the Democrats could move these requests along at any time but instead are actively continuing to delay the process.

In an effort to speed up this process, I offered an amendment yesterday at the Rules Committee that very reasonably would have addressed these delays and would have required the Joint Committee on the Library to act within 30 days of receiving any actionable items on statue replacement. Thirty days, come on.

Democrats ruled it out of order. I believe that is because they wanted to vote on this bill. Each of the statues in question represents a known racist who was a Democrat from the past. The majority party is anxious to erase their discriminatory history from the Capitol with this action.

So, let's have the vote. Let's have a vote on this Democrat bill intending to remove Democrat statues.

Madam Speaker, my constituent Abraham Lincoln is buried in my district, the 13th District of Illinois, the first Republican President of our great Nation. I am proud to represent that history. I stood on this floor debating and supporting this bill in the last Congress, and I will support it again.

But please, Madam Speaker, please, please encourage the Democratic majority to help us reform this broken process that has delayed and delayed and kept statues of known Confederates, known racists, who happen to be Democrats in the past, in this Capitol.

Let's work together. Let's get this done. Let's stop playing games.

And let's actually open the Capitol again. It is kind of interesting and ironic that no one can see these statues because the Capitol is closed.

What are we doing to establish a plan to reopen our Capitol for our Nation to actually share in this history, to share in the history of Abraham Lincoln, to share in the history of our country, to share in the special building that we get the chance to walk in and work in while it remains closed?

Madam Speaker, I look forward to working in a bipartisan way to reform this broken process. Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today, and I intend to vote for this bill.

Madam Speaker, you have been a dear friend for a long time. You have been in my office, and you sat on the couch. I sat across, in the chair. And you know the portrait that hangs in my office, a portrait of Abraham Lincoln. I am proud that he was the first Republican President of the United States. I am proud of the action that he took in a defining time of our Nation. The greatest challenge ever to our Constitution was the Civil War, by long and by far.

The bill we are voting on today we voted on before. I supported it then, and I support it now.

But let me state a simple fact: All the statues being removed by this bill are statues of Democrats. Madam Speaker, as I heard the Speaker talk earlier about removing the four portraits of Speakers in the hall, the same answer goes for that, as well. They were all Democrats.

What is interesting is the statues that need to be removed were sent to the Capitol by States that were a majority controlled by Democrats sent to a House that had a majority controlled by Democrats accepting of these statues.

I think the bill should go further. Maybe it is time the Democrats change the name of their party. They may be desperate to pretend their party has progressed from the days of supporting slavery, pushing Jim Crow laws or supporting the KKK.

But let's be honest, at any place at any time if those fundamentals rest somewhere, we cannot let them.

Let's go through some of the words and actions of a few Democrats. Just a few years ago then-Vice President Joe Biden praised Democrat Senator Robert Byrd. He was an ``exalted cyclops'' of the Ku Klux Klan. In his eulogy for Byrd he said: ``For a lot of us, he was a friend . . . mentor . . . and guide.''

Another leading Democrat who praised Byrd at the time was Speaker Pelosi. She called Byrd a friend, a great person, and a great American patriot.

Madam Speaker, today the Democratic Party has doubled down on what I consider this shameful history by replacing the racism of the past with the racism of the critical race theory.

They continue to look at race as the primary means of judging a person's character. We saw this just last week. Senate Democrats voted to confirm one of President Biden's appointees who said: ``We must do everything in our collective power to realize Dr. Kendi's vision for America.''

Let me be clear about what that vision is. Kendi, the author of ``How to Be an Antiracist'' proposed in his book that the solution to past discrimination is present discrimination. Now that is what the person who is now in charge of the personnel of the entire Federal Government is endorsing. And this divisive vision isn't confirmed or just confined to one person or department.

The Navy included Kendi's book on its official reading list for sailors and the Department of Education has praised the debunked ``The 1619 Project,'' citing it as an example of what should be taught to our children.

Critical race theory is the governing ideology of what we are now finding in the Biden administration. By advocating for it Democrats continue to fuel hatred and division across the country.

I agree with Senator Tim Scott: America is not a racist country.

America must reject critical race theory for the simple reason: State-sponsored racism is wrong and always will be.

It was wrong when it was segregated lunch counters of Jim Crow, and it was wrong when it was segregated classrooms of critical race theory.

Madam Speaker, many times I wonder what would America have looked like had Abraham Lincoln not been assassinated? Malice towards none. What would America have looked like had the agreement to remove the Federal troops from the south because Joseph Rainey was elected to Congress, and Jim Crow laws were passed by Democrat-controlled offices in the south?

Our Nation was built on a unifying vision from the beginning. As Lincoln said, we are conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that we are all equal.

I will vote for this bill today, just as I voted for it before, but, Madam Speaker, if we have not learned anything, we should not divide our Nation based on race.

I applaud the Democrats for standing up, removing Democrat statues from Democrat-controlled majorities sent to a Democrat majority House that accepted them. It is about time. But, Madam Speaker, to continue along in a critical race theory where you would teach an individual that they are right or wrong based upon the color of skin goes against everything that we are voting about today.

Madam Speaker, you know my heart, and I know yours. There are times we might disagree on philosophy or how best to run a government, but we never disagreed by judging somebody by the color of their skin.

And I hope we take this moment and this opportunity as we promised before to strive to be a more perfect Union.