Condemning the horrific shootings in Atlanta, Georgia, on March 16, 2021, and reaffirming the House of Representative's commitment to combating hate, bigotry, and violence against the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 409 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House Resolution 409. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3233 to establish a National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security or their designees and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3237, the Emergency Security Supplemental to Respond to January 6 Appropriations Act, 2021, under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, it has been 133 days since an angry mob of insurrectionists tried to stop the certification of a free and fair election in America. The question before us today is this: What are we going to do about it?

Some of my colleagues on the other side want to sweep this dark chapter under the rug. Just last week, one Republican said the events of January 6 resembled a ``normal tourist visit.''

Madam Speaker, I was here presiding over the House on January 6. People died that day. Police officers were beaten and bloodied. America's Capitol, the symbol of our freedom and the

citadel of our democracy, was desecrated by a mob that wanted to invalidate an election. There was nothing normal about it.

It is not normal for a mob to break into this complex to try and hang the Vice President of the United States and harm other elected officials.

It is not normal for insurrectionists to try to stop the certification of an American election, one that judge after judge after judge said was free and fair. And it is not normal for Congress to respond by doing nothing. That is why we are considering the underlying legislation contained in this rule. It will establish a bipartisan 9/ 11-style commission to investigate what happened, a commission led not by politicians, but by experts.

Now let me say this plainly: A vote for this commission is a vote to make sure this never happens again. And I want to recognize the incredible work of the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security in navigating this truly bipartisan deal. It is one that will keep the focus where it should be, solely on the events of January 6. And I look forward to the Commission's report at the end of the year. But the truth is, we cannot wait until then to fix what we already know needs fixing.

We need to upgrade the physical safety of this and other Federal buildings. We need to increase security in district offices, repay the National Guard for their service in the aftermath of the insurrection, and provide support to the overworked Capitol Police force that keep us all safe day after day.

Madam Speaker, this is how you respond responsibly to what happened 4 months ago, not with deflection or mistruths, but by taking action to protect not only this complex and those who work, serve, and visit here, but to also protect our very democracy, and making sure we never become a country that lets any angry mob decide who the next President will be.

Madam Speaker, only the voters can do that. We need to put the facts on Record here, to tell the truth and not spread lies. And the truth is that some on the other side are afraid to do anything around here because they are afraid, afraid of the truth, afraid because their leadership doesn't want to offend the ex-President and his big lie. That is all I could think of when I read the minority leader's deeply troubling statement opposing the January 6 commission.

Now, even though it is bipartisan, even though his own ranking member negotiated the deal, even though we gave him virtually everything he asked for during the negotiations, a Republican aide said it best when they were quoted in the press yesterday saying this: ``I think Kevin was hoping that the Democrats would never agree to our requests; That way the commission would be partisan and we can all vote ``no'' and say it is a sham operation, because he knows Trump is going to lose his mind.'' Lose his mind over a bipartisan commission.

Madam Speaker, this moment is a choice, a choice between the truth or siding with the originator of the big lie. To my friends on the other side, I am asking you to lead with the courage of your convictions. Vote your conscience. Support this bipartisan commission, not just because it is the right thing to do, but support it out of respect, out of respect for your colleagues, for your staff and the support staff here, for the Capitol Police, but, most importantly, respect for this institution.

Now, I have cast some tough votes in my career, but casting a vote to establish a bipartisan commission to establish an insurrection is not one of them. I appeal to my colleagues to do the right thing, to lead with courage, and support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I also agree with the gentleman that Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Katko deserve an enormous amount of credit. They negotiated a truly bipartisan deal.

I have taken note of the letter that Minority Leader McCarthy sent to Speaker Pelosi of all the things he wanted in this deal, and he got virtually every one of them, all in this bipartisan deal. Now, all of a sudden, it is not good enough.

All of the concerns that my good friend raised are addressed in this bill. The commission could look at anything and investigate anything related to the violence that occurred here on January 6.

I mean, what happened here, isn't that a big enough deal to merit an investigation?

I don't get it.

In the bill, by the way, is language that is quite clear about how this commission will not interfere with any other ongoing investigations. In fact, very similar to the 9/11 commission, it will be informed by other investigations and complement other investigations.

So, again, I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote for this commission, out of respect for the people who work here, out of respect for this institution, out of respect for our democracy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Madam Speaker, I reference the text of S. 937 and H. Res. 275, a bill and a resolution we are considering this week. S. 937 was passed yesterday, and right after this debate, we are going to adopt H. Res. 275. They are two pieces of legislation condemning hate crimes against Asian Americans in this country.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from the family of United States Capitol Officer Howie Liebengood, who died by suicide. His death was a direct result of the trauma and strain from the January 6 attack.

Madam Speaker, in the statement, the family of Officer Liebengood states: ``We believe a thorough, nonpartisan investigation into the root causes of and the response to the January 6 riot is essential for our Nation to move forward. Howie's death was an immediate outgrowth of those events.''

Liebengood Family Statement on the January 6th Commission and Security

Supplemental

Family of fallen USCP Officer Howie Liebengood calls on Congress to

pass both pieces of legislation

Washington, DC--Today, the Office of Congresswoman Jennifer

Wexton (D-VA) released the following statement from the

family of United States Capitol Police Officer Howie

Liebengood regarding the National Commission to Investigate

the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act

and the Emergency Security Supplemental to Respond to January

6th Appropriations Act.

``We believe a thorough, non-partisan investigation into

the root causes of and the response to the January 6th riot

is essential for our nation to move forward. Howie's death

was an immediate outgrowth of those events. Every officer who

worked that day, as well as their families, should have a

better understanding of what happened. Uncovering the facts

will help our nation heal and may lessen the lingering

emotional bitterness that has divided our country. We implore

Congress to work as one and establish the proposed

Commission.

``Additionally, improved mental health for USCP officers

has been one of our goals for the past four months. Through

the tireless efforts of Congresswoman Wexton, we are honored

a wellness program bearing Howie's name has been proposed in

the security supplemental along with more resources for the

program. We welcome and support the new funding and staffing

initiatives that will help prevent future tragedies among the

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a May 19 letter

from the Bipartisan Policy Center in support of H.R. 3233, the National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act.

In the letter, the cochairs of the 9/11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Representative Lee Hamilton state: ``A full accounting of the events of January 6 and the identification of measures to strengthen the Congress can help our country heal.''

[From BPC Action]

BPC Action Urges Support for H.R. 3233

H.R. 3233, the ``National Commission to Investigate the

January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act,''

is a crucial step for the country to get the truth of those

shocking events and agree on how to ensure they never occur

again. The Bipartisan Policy Center is encouraged that the

agreement reflects the principles of 9-11 Commission chairs

Gov. Tom Kean and Rep. Lee Hamilton, who stated, ``A full

accounting of the events of January 6th and the

identification of measures to strengthen the Congress can

help our country heal.''

A single narrative of the facts of that day and actionable

recommendations for preventing them from recurring are the

predicate for ensuring our democracy is respected and

protected. This bipartisan, independent commission is

structured so experts will be empowered to objectively assess

the evidence and chart a path forward.

In this midst of opportunity for growth and healing, it is

crucial that we reflect on our history: the strength of the

9/11 commission was that it was bipartisan and unified by the

imperative of national security. Twenty years later, we are

reminded of the security challenges this nation faces, and we

must come together in the same way we did following 9/11.

We applaud the House and Senate committees and law

enforcement investigations that have laid groundwork for an

independent commission to begin its work--and House and

Senate leaders, especially Chairman Bennie Thompson and

Ranking Member John Katko, for creating a process that has a

real chance for success. We urge Congress to support H.R.

3233.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), who is the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Madam Speaker, let's be clear that opposition to this commission is not about substance or policy; it really is about politics, plain and simple. At least, my Republican colleagues in the Senate side are willing to admit that. Senator Thune said that there is concern among Republicans that the findings could be ``weaponized politically and drug into next year''.

I get that his members want to ``be moving forward and not looking backward,'' but this was an attack on the United States Capitol, and all the people who work here. It was an attack on our democracy.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a CNN article entitled ``Republicans fear January 6 probe could undercut 2022 midterm message.''

[From CNN, May 19, 2021]

Republicans Fear January 6 Probe Could Undercut 2022 Midterm Message

(By Manu Raju)

Senior Republicans are making clear they have little

interest in moving forward with a sweeping January 6

investigation in part because a detailed probe could become

politically damaging and amount to a distraction for their

party just as control of Congress is at stake in next year's

midterm elections.

Publicly and privately, Republicans are making that case,

with Senate GOP Whip John Thune noting that there's concern

among some GOP members that the findings of the probe ``could

be weaponized politically and drug into next year.'' ``I want

our midterm message to be on the kinds of things that the

American people are dealing with: That's jobs and wages and

the economy and national security, safe streets and strong

borders--not relitigating the 2020 elections,'' Thune told

CNN. ``A lot of our members, and I think this is true of a

lot of House Republicans, want to be moving forward and not

looking backward. Anything that gets us rehashing the 2020

elections I think is a day lost on being able to draw a

contrast between us the Democrats' very radical left-wing

agenda.''

Thune's comments came moments after Senate GOP Leader Mitch

McConnell announced his opposition on the floor, contending

it would duplicate ongoing probes

and contending the deal--which was reached between a House

Republican and House Democrat--is designed to find a

conclusion that would be in ``Democrats' hands.'' The

commission would be structured so 10 members--chosen equally

between the leaders from both political parties--could report

by year's end on what happened on January 6, as well as the

``influencing factors'' behind it.

It's clear that such an investigation would also look at

then-President Donald Trump's role in promoting the January 6

``Stop the Steal'' rally, his lies that the election was

stolen and his efforts to subvert the will of voters.

Moreover, it could put an uncomfortable focus on some

conservative GOP senators and House members who sought to

overturn the election results in Congress, while keeping the

issue front-and-center as the investigation plays out over

the next year.

And there are ample questions about whether House GOP

Leader Kevin McCarthy would be forced to testify to explain

what Trump was saying on January 6 given the two spoke during

a heated phone call that day.

``It would be a distraction,'' one senior GOP source told

CNN, arguing any investigation should also look at left-wing

extremism as well.

Similar concerns were voiced through the Senate Republican

Conference on Wednesday, coming hours after a group of

members huddled privately with McCarthy earlier in the

morning.

Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and member of

leadership, said that in addition to his concern about a

commission's work overlapping with criminal probes, he

accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of pushing the

investigation to help Democrats' chances at keeping control

of Congress.

``Well, part of the concern is that's the plan,'' Cornyn

said. ``That's Pelosi's plan.'' If the probe dragged out

until the next year, he added: ``That would be the Democrats'

dream. . . . I generally don't try to help Democrats.''

While the bill is expected to pass the House on Wednesday,

it's an open question whether it will pass the Senate, where

60 votes would be needed to break a GOP filibuster.

Thune, the chief GOP vote counter, said they haven't taken

the caucus' temperature yet on the plan.

``I would say that there's a skepticism about what's

happening in the House right now and whether or not what

comes out is a proposal that will be fair.''

Sen. Gary Peters, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial

Campaign Committee, said there's a reason why Republicans are

battling the commission.

``They're afraid of the truth because it puts them on the

wrong side of what is right,'' Peters, a Michigan Democrat,

said Wednesday.

Asked if he is concerned the probe could last into the

midterm season when the GOP wants to focus on jobs,

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said: ``There's

a lot of stuff we need to focus on.''

``Why shift our attention away from that, when we already

have an infrastructure in place to address a lot of the

things that the commission seems to be stood up to address,''

Tillis asked. ``Seems redundant.''

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, I am having trouble trying to figure out exactly what the problem that some of my Republican colleagues may have with this bill. Maybe, based on the lack of speakers, they are having trouble figuring it out too.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining for us on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members here today to read today's Washington Post editorial questioning Leader McCarthy's political courage in opposing this bill and calling for him to testify under oath about his eyewitness experience of the violence and former President Trump's apparent indifference to it.

The editorial also criticizes his false equivalence of Black Lives Matter protests to the Capitol invasion and his minimization of the insurrection's significance, which only encourages the lies on which it is based.

I include that article in the Record.

[From the Washington Post, May 18, 2021]

Opinion: Kevin McCarthy Plumbs New Depths of Political Cowardice

(Opinion by the Editorial Board)

Democratic and Republican negotiators agreed last week to

create a high-level, expert commission with subpoena power to

conduct an examination of the Jan. 6 Capitol invasion, one of

the lowest moments in U.S. history. But House Minority Leader

Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Tuesday threw his negotiators

under the bus, condemning the compromise and vowing to oppose

the bill creating the commission when it comes to a House

vote Wednesday.

Many Republicans do not want an impartial panel to remind

the public of their party's role in the event. A fair inquiry

would examine how GOP lawmakers fed the election lies that

inspired the mob, and how they built Jan. 6, which should

have featured a pro forma counting of electoral votes, into a

showdown over the 2020 presidential election. Republican

lawmakers who signed a spurious lawsuit seeking to overturn

the results bear some guilt; those who went on to object to

the counting of electoral votes from several swing states

bear even more.

An honest proceeding would also require Mr. McCarthy to

testify under oath about his eyewitness experience of the

violence--and to then-President Donald Trump's apparent

indifference. Mr. McCarthy has resisted offering the public a

frank accounting of his interactions with Mr. Trump,

including on a phone call during which Mr. McCarthy

reportedly begged Mr. Trump to stop the mob. Mr. McCarthy has

concluded that whatever political benefits he receives from

embracing Mr. Trump are worth the price of his integrity.

If there are to be hearings, Mr. McCarthy argued, they

should examine not only the Capitol invasion but other

politically motivated violence, such as the riots surrounding

the Black Lives Matter protests last summer. The point is to

draw a false equivalence between a historically unique attack

on the nation's seat of government, in which Mr. Trump and

other Republicans are directly implicated, and crimes that

left-leaning activists committed--crimes that did not occur

in the halls of Congress, that did not aim to interrupt the

peaceful transition of power, that did not reflect a plot to

overturn a presidential election.

Mr. McCarthy knows Democrats will never endorse a panel

designed to mislead the nation about Jan. 6, so his proposal

for a broader mandate is a ruse: He simply does not want any

investigation at all. House Democrats should nevertheless

advance the compromise plan on Wednesday. Then the public

will see whether there are 10 Senate Republicans willing to

approve the deal. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-

Ky.) on Tuesday did not rule out supporting it, raising minor

concerns about its structure that should be negotiable. But

if Senate Republicans capitulate to the calculations driving

Mr. McCarthy, House and Senate committees should use their

subpoena power to conduct their own investigations, even if

that means Democrats lead the inquiries without Republican

cooperation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that any of my Republican colleagues would oppose the creation of this commission. There is a lot of talk all the time about the need for bipartisanship, and that is what we have here. This is true bipartisanship.

The distinguished minority leader sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi asking for an equal 5:5 ratio in appointments by Democrats and Republicans on this commission. He got it.

He asked for coequal subpoena power. He got it.

He asked for no inclusion of findings or other predetermined conclusions which ultimately should be rendered by the commission itself. He got it.

Now, maybe the gentleman didn't think he would, but Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Katko, who was appointed by the minority leader to negotiate on behalf of the Republicans, came to a deal, a genuinely bipartisan deal to look into the horrific acts of what happened in this Chamber on January 6.

I was here that day. They were not ordinary tourists who came in here. My colleagues on the Republican side who are here today, there are pictures of them helping to barricade the doors. They know exactly what happened on January 6.

Those people who attacked the Capitol were not here to make a political point. They were here to desecrate this building and hurt people.

We, as Members of Congress, signed up for this job. But I want Members to vote for this commission, not because of us, but because of the people who work here, our staff, the support staff, the Capitol Police, the people who work in our cafeterias, the people who maintain this building. They were traumatized by what happened here.

Our response to all of this is: Well, let's move on. Let's not do this, in spite of a truly bipartisan negotiation and a bipartisan commission.

This is so disappointing. I mean, don't talk to us about bipartisanship, and then when you get it, you turn your back on it.

Madam Speaker, I am sick and tired of those who want to hover around mistruths and lies and spread conspiracy theories. What happened 133 days ago can never be normalized. We all have to speak the truth, and we must act to prevent it from ever happening again. That starts with not only passing this rule but passing this bipartisan bill to establish a bipartisan commission to produce a report for the American people so that we know clearly and credibly as to what happened and that we can take additional actions to make sure it never happens again.

As I said in my opening, vote for this out of respect for this institution, out of respect for our democracy, out of respect for the truth, out of respect for the people who work for you, who come here every day and work for you. We owe it to them and to this country to move forward.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of H. Res. 398, the Recognizing the Forthcoming Centennial of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, recognizes one of the darkest moments in American history, the Tulsa-Greenwood Race Massacre, that occurred in the African American Greenwood community of Tulsa, Oklahoma on May 31-June 1, 1921.

Madam Speaker, earlier this year I introduced a resolution (H. Res. 215 later modified as H. Res. 398), joined by 84 cosponsors, recognizing the centennial of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre.

The resolution was reintroduced as H. Res. 398 to make technical corrections to allow the House of Representatives to vote on the measure.

On March 18, 2021, I am pleased to report that the H. Res. 398 passed the House as part of the House Rule for H.R. 1629, the Fairness in Orphan Drug Exclusivity Act, and H. Res. 275, the Condemning the horrific shootings in Atlanta, Georgia, on March 16, 2021.

As the great southern writer William Faulkner reminded us: ``The past is never dead. It's not even past.''

Madam Speaker, as I and other Members spoke in support of H. Res. 398, we recounted the hatreds, prejudices, resentments, and white supremacy that Black Americans witnessed and suffered in Greenwood a century ago are not dead; they are not even past.

A century ago, White rioters, local law enforcement, and self- appointed vigilantes claimed to be acting reasonably and in self- defense against what they feared was an upcoming Black uprising.

They resented the economic prosperity and self-sufficiency of the Greenwood community, which was known nationally as ``Black Wall Street.''

They viewed Black males as fearsome physical threats to their personal safety and as rivals to white women.

These baseless, irrational concerns are not a relic of the past, they are with us today and are what resulted in the deaths of George Floyd, Tamir Rice, Deonte Wright, Stephon Clark, Amidou Diallo, and hundreds of others too numerous to list.

In 1921, Tulsa, Oklahoma's Greenwood District, known as ``Black Wall Street,'' was one of the most documented prosperous African American communities in the United States.

The Greenwood community with a population of over 100,000 Black people had stores that sold luxury items, 21 restaurants, 30 grocery stores, a hospital, a savings and loan bank, a post office, three hotels, jewelry and clothing stores, two movie theaters, a library, pool halls, a bus and cab service, a nationally recognized school system, six private airplanes, and two black newspapers.

On May 31st of that year, the 35 city blocks of Greenwood went up in flames, at least 300 Black persons were murdered and more than 800 were injured; it is estimated that not less than 9,000 were left homeless and destitute.

These rioters reenacted the brutality of the mob from a hundred years ago in the hallowed halls of the Citadel of Democracy.

It should not be overlooked that the source of their irrational anger, hatred, and violent reaction was that Black Americans voted in overwhelming numbers in the Atlanta, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Detroit to oust the most negative, divisive, racially hostile, and incompetent presidents history, the 45th President, who presided over the deaths of more than 500,000 Americans, disproportionately Black and Brown.

The legacy of white mob violence inflicted upon the Black community of Greenwood has scarred the descendants of the victims of this American pogrom.

Madam Speaker, the events of January 6th have given us insight into what the people of Greenwood Oklahoma faced when they were attacked by a similar murderous mob.

H. Res. 98 is a reminder to the nation of the ultimate cruelty inflicted upon a people for dare believing that the promise of America was attainable by them and their achievements would be respected and protected by law.

But it does more than that, it puts the House of Representatives on record that the United States can achieve a more perfect union:

by condemning the violence and destruction perpetrated against the African-American community of Greenwood, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the scene of the then-largest single instance of domestic terror against American citizens;

through the rejection and active opposition to the false ideology of White supremacy and condemnation of all groups and organizations that ascribe to this false system of belief and seek to perpetuate their views through violence and unlawful conduct;

by promoting tolerance and unity and taking actions to ensure that governmental policies and actions do not foster division, disharmony, or intolerance;

by calling upon all Americans to celebrate the ethnic, racial, and religious diversity that has made the United States the leader of the community of nations and the beacon of hope and inspiration to oppressed persons everywhere;

encouraging all persons in the United States to reflect upon the history of the United States as an imperfect but committed journey to establish a more perfect union and to cherish and exercise the rights, privileges, and responsibilities guaranteed by the Constitution; and

recognizing the commitment of Congress to acknowledge and. learn from the history of racism and racial violence in the United States, including the Tulsa Race Massacre, to reverse the legacy of White supremacy and fight for racial justice.

Madam Speaker, I will now briefly recount the horrific events cited in H. Res. 398 that were experienced by the law-abiding Black community of Greenwood on those terrible days.

In 1921, White supremacy and racist violence were common throughout the United States and went largely unchecked by the justice system.

In Tulsa, Oklahoma reports of an alleged and disputed incident on the morning of May 30, 1921, between two teenagers, a Black man and a White woman, caused the White community of Tulsa, including the Tulsa Tribune, to call for a lynching amidst a climate of White racial hostility and White resentment over Black economic success.

On May 31, 1921, a mob of armed White men descended upon Tulsa's Greenwood District and launched what is now known as the ``Tulsa Race Massacre.''

Tulsa municipal and county authorities failed to take actions to calm or contain the violence, and civil and law enforcement officials deputized many White men who were participants in the violence as their agents, directly contributing to the violence through overt and often illegal acts.

Over a period of 24 hours, the White mob's violence led to the death of an estimated 300 Black residents, as well as over 800 reports of injuries.

The White mob looted, damaged, burned, or otherwise destroyed approximately 40 square blocks of the Greenwood district, including an estimated 1,256 homes of Black residents, as well as virtually every other structure, including churches, schools, businesses, a hospital, and a library, leaving nearly 9,000 Black residents of the Greenwood community homeless and effectively wiping out tens of millions dollars in Black prosperity and wealth.

In the wake of the Tulsa Race Massacre, the Governor of Oklahoma declared martial law, and units of the Oklahoma National Guard participated in the mass arrests of all or nearly all of Greenwood's surviving residents, removing them from Greenwood to other parts of Tulsa and unlawfully detaining them in holding centers.

Oklahoma local and state governments dismissed claims arising from it the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre for decades, and the event was effectively erased from collective memory and history until, in 1997, the Oklahoma State Legislature finally created a commission to study the event.

On February 28, 2001, the commission issued a report that detailed, for the first time, the extent of the Massacre and decades-long efforts to suppress its recollection.

None of the law enforcement officials nor any of the hundreds of other White mob members who participated in the violence were ever prosecuted or held accountable for the hundreds of lives lost and tens of millions of dollars of Black wealth destroyed, despite the Tulsa Race Massacre Commission confirming their roles in the Massacre, nor was any compensation ever provided to the Massacre's victims or their descendants.

Government and city officials not only abdicated their responsibility to rebuild and repair the Greenwood community in the wake of the violence, but actively blocked efforts to do so, contributing to continued racial disparities in Tulsa akin to those that Black people still face today across the United States.

Madam Speaker, the pattern of violence against Black people in the United States, often at the hands of law enforcement, shows that the fight to end State-sanctioned violence against Black people continues.

As the American Historical Association stated, ``What happened in Tulsa was extreme, but not unusual. It is part of our Nation's heritage. We must acknowledge that heritage, learn from it, and do whatever each of us can do to ensure that it is just that--heritage, rather than a continuing practice.''

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a more detailed account of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre that is based on the ``Final Report of the Oklahoma Commission to Study The Tulsa Race Riot of 1921,'' issued February 28, 2001.

Madam Speaker, I also ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims and survivors of the Tulsa Race Massacre, and their descendants to carry the terrible memories of that horrific day and still grieve over the loss of so many loved ones and of faith in the American system of justice.

Mother Randle's Written Testimony for the House Subcommittee on the

Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, May 19, 2021

I am blessed and honored to be talking with you today. It

means a lot to me to finally be able to look at you all in

the eye and ask you to do the right thing. I have waited so

long for justice.

My name is Lessie Evelyn Benningfield Randle. People call

me Mother Randle. Today, I am 106-years-old. 100 years ago,

in 1921, I was a 6-year-old child. I was blessed to live with

my grandmother in a beautiful Black community in Tulsa

Oklahoma, called Greenwood. I was lucky. I had a home. I had

toys. I didn't have any fears as a young child and I felt

very safe. My community was beautiful and was filled with

happy and successful Black people. Then everything changed.

It was like a war. White men with guns came and destroyed

my community. We couldn't understand why. What did we do to

them? We didn't understand. We were just living. But they

came, and they destroyed everything.

They burned houses and businesses. They just took what they

wanted out of the buildings then they burned them. They

murdered people. We were told they just dumped the dead

bodies into the river. I remember running outside of our

house. I ran past dead bodies. It wasn't a pretty sight. I

still see it today in my mind--100 years later.

I was so scared--I didn't think we would make it out alive.

I remember people were running everywhere. We waited for the

soldiers to come, and when they finally came, they took us to

the fairgrounds where we would be safe. It felt like so long

before they came.

I survived the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. And I have

survived 100 years of painful memories and losses.

By the grace of God, I am still here. I have survived. I

have survived to tell this story. I believe that I am still

here to share it with you. Hopefully now, you all will listen

to us. While we are still here.

The white people who did this to us, were filled with so

much hate. It is disgusting that they hate us for no reason

except that we are Black people.

We know--most of the people who committed these acts are

dead now. The three of us here today, are the only ones

left--that we know of. But just because these men are

probably dead, the City and County of Tulsa, the State of

Oklahoma, and the Tulsa Chamber are still responsible for

making it right.

The City and County caused this to happen to us--

The State allowed this happen to us--they didn't protect

us.

The Chamber helped ensure that we could not rebuild after

the Massacre, including holding us in internment camps.

They owe us something. They owe me something. I have lived

much of my life poor. My opportunities were taken from me.

And my community, North Tulsa--Black Tulsa--is still messed

up today. They didn't rebuild it. Its empty. It's a ghetto.

You can help us get some justice.

America is full of examples where people in positions of

power, many just like you, have told us to wait. Others have

told us it's too late. It seems like justice in America is

always so slow or not possible for Blacks. And we are made to

feel crazy just for asking for things to be made right. There

are always so many excuses for why justice is so slow or

never happens at all.

I am here today, at 106-years-old, looking at you all in

the eye. We've waited too long, and I am tired. We are tired.

I am asking you today to give us some peace. Please give me,

my family, and my community some justice.

Thank you.

Hughes Van Ellis Written Testimony for the House Subcommittee on the

Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, May 19, 2021

My name is Hughes Van Ellis. I am 100 years old. And I am a

survivor of the Tulsa Race Massacre. Because of the Massacre,

my family was driven from our home. We were left with

nothing. We were made refugees in our own country.

My childhood was hard and we didn't have much. We worried

what little we had would be stolen from us. Just like it was

stolen in Tulsa. You may have been taught that when something

is stolen from you, you can go to the courts to be made

whole. You can go to the courts to get justice. This wasn't

the case for us. The courts in Oklahoma wouldn't hear us. The

federal courts said we were too late.

We were made to feel that our struggles were unworthy of

justice. That we were less valued than whites, that we

weren't fully American. We were shown that in the United

States, not all men were equal under law. We were shown that

when Black voices called out for justice, no one cared.

But we still had faith things would get better. We still

believed in the promise of America and in the cause of

freedom.

I did my duty in World War II. I served in combat in the

Far East with the 234th AAA Gun Battalion. We were an all-

black battalion. I fought for freedom abroad, even though it

was ripped away from me at home, even after my home and my

community were destroyed, I did it because I believed, in the

end, America would get it right.

When I returned home from the war, I didn't find any of the

freedom I was fighting for overseas. Unlike white servicemen,

I wasn't entitled to GI Bill benefits because of the color of

my skin. I came home to segregation. A separate and unequal

America. But still I believed in America,

This is why we are still speaking up today, even at the age

of 100. The Tulsa Race Massacre isn't a footnote in a history

book for us. We live with it every day and the thought of

what Greenwood was and what it could have been. We aren't

just black and white pictures on a screen, we are flesh and

blood. I was there when it happened, I'm still here. My

sister was there when it happened, she's still here.

We're not asking for a handout. All we are asking for is

for a chance to be treated like a first-class citizen who

truly is a beneficiary of the promise that this is a land

where there is ``liberty and justice for all.''

We are asking for justice for a lifetime of ongoing harm.

Harm that was caused by the Massacre. You can give us the

chance to be heard and give us a chance to be made whole

after all these years and after all our struggle.

I still believe in America. I still believe in the ideals

that I fought overseas to defend. And I believe if given the

chance you will do the right thing and justice will be

served. Thank you.

Written Testimony of Mother Viola Fletcher for the Subcommittee on the

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, Wednesday, May 19,

2021

My name is Viola Fletcher, or Mother Fletcher. I am the

daughter of Lucinda Ellis and John Wesley Ford of Tulsa,

Oklahoma. I am the sister of Hughes Van Ellis, who is also

here today. And I am a survivor of the Tulsa Race Massacre.

Two weeks ago, I celebrated my 107th birthday.

Today, I am in Washington, D.C. for the first time in my

life. I am here seeking justice. I am here asking my country

to acknowledge what happened in Tulsa in 1921.

On May 31st 1921, I went to bed in my family's home in the

Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa. The neighborhood I feel

asleep in that night was rich--not just in terms of wealth,

but in culture, community, and heritage. My family had a

beautiful home. We had great neighbors and I had friends to

play with. I felt safe. I had everything a child could need.

I had a bright future ahead of me. Greenwood could have given

me the chance to truly make it in this country.

Within a few hours, all of that was gone. The night of the

Massacre I was woken up by my family. My parents and five

siblings were there. I was told we had to leave. And that was

it.

I will never forget the violence of the white mob when we

left our house. I still see Black men being shot, and Black

bodies lying in the street. I still smell smoke and see fire.

I still see Black businesses being burned. I still hear

airplanes flying overhead. I hear the screams. I live through

the Massacre every day.

Our country may forget this history. I cannot. I will not.

The other survivors do not. And our descendants do not.

When my family was forced to leave Tulsa, I lost my chance

at an education. I never finished school past the fourth

grade. I have never made much money. My country, state, and

city took a lot from me. Despite this, I spent time

supporting the war effort in the shipyards of California. But

for most of my life, I was a domestic worker serving white

families. I never made much money. To this day, I can barely

afford my everyday needs. All the while the City of Tulsa

have unjustly used the names and stories of victims like me

to enrich itself and its White allies through the $30 million

raised by the Tulsa Centennial Commission while I continue to

live in poverty.

I am 107 years old and have never seen justice. I pray that

one day I will. I have been blessed with a long life--and

have seen the best and worst of this country. I think about

the horrors inflicted upon Black people in this country every

day.

This Subcommittee has the power to lead us down a better

path. I am asking that my country acknowledge what has

happened to me. The trauma. The pain. The loss. And I ask

that survivors and descendants be given a chance to seek

justice. Open the courtroom doors to us.

I believe we must acknowledge America's sins. It is the

least we can do.

I saw what happened here on January 6th this year. It broke

my heart. It reminded me of what happened 100 years ago. And

now, I hear some of you on TV saying it didn't happen, like

we didn't see it with our own eyes. It happened on live TV.

100 years ago, there was no TV, but you have me here right

now. You see Mother Randle. You see my brother, Hughes Van

Ellis. We lived this history. We can't ignore it. It lives

with us.

We lost everything that day. Our homes. Our churches. Our

newspapers. Our theaters. Our lives. Greenwood represented

the best of what was possible for Black people in America--

and for all people. No one cared about us for almost 100

years. We, and our history, have been forgotten, washed away.

This Congress must recognize us, and our history. For Black

Americans. For white Americans. For all Americans. That's

some justice.

Thank you.

Madam Speaker, as Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Homeland Security, and Terrorism, and a senior member of the Homeland Security, and Budget Committees, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 275--Condemning the horrific shootings in Atlanta, Georgia, on March 16, 2021, and reaffirming the House of Representative's commitment to combating hate, bigotry, and violence against the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community.

Madam Speaker, we all awoke earlier this year to the horrific news that in suburban Atlanta, Georgia, a 21-year old angry white man murdered 8 persons at three Asian massage spas.

Among the innocent victims were 6 young Asian American women who worked in the establishments.

The suspected perpetrator of these brutal crimes has been arrested and charged with 8 counts of murder.

According to the Atlanta Police Department, the killer is reported to have told police that he has an issue, what he considers a `sex addiction,' and `sees these [Asian massage spa] locations as something that allows him to go to these places' and `it is a temptation for him that he wanted to eliminate.'

Adding insult to injury, a Georgia sheriff's captain, acting as spokesperson for law enforcement investigators, characterized the killer as ``having a really bad day.''

Madam Speaker, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, there has been a significant increase in harassment and violence against the Asian American community.

Unfortunately, this is not new; there is a long history of racism again Asian Americans, especially during times of social and economic unrest.

Throughout American history Asian Americans are often blamed for the emergence of pandemics and diseases, even if the sickness originated far outside the Asian American community.

The COVID-19 pandemic is no exception, as American citizens, and residents of actual or perceived Chinese descent, have received intense and unjust scrutiny, violence, and harassment as perpetrators associate them with the cause of the pandemic and resulting social and economic turmoil.

And the racist practice of the 45th President of always referring to the coronavirus as the ``China Virus,'' or ``Kung Flu'' certainly contributed to, and inflamed, an already dangerous climate for persons of Asian descent.

Asian migration to the continental United States can be traced as far back as 1800's.

Despite their long residence in the country, throughout American history Asian American communities have been stigmatized as perpetual foreigners.

These xenophobic sentiments are especially exacerbated in times of social and economic discontent, leaving Asian American communities vulnerable to white supremacist and racist violence and harassment.

Especially notable to today, historically anti-Asian racism often associates Asian communities with illness--leaving Asian Americans particularly vulnerable to medical scapegoating and violence during epidemics.

Xenophobia and racism against the Asian American community continued well into the 20th century.

Most infamously, in 1942 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which ordered the forced internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

While American immigration policies' still forbade the free migration of Asian immigrants into the country, thousands of Japanese-Americans had lived in the United States for decades, many of whom were second and third-generation Americans.

As the 1980 investigation and report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians would later conclude, Japanese internment was primarily driven by racism and xenophobia rather than a legitimate security threat.

Even though nearly two-thirds of Japanese internees were American citizens, Japanese-Americans were considered as a collective to be disloyal, un-American, and a security risk.

In 1982, amid a downturn in the U.S. automobile industry that was blamed on competition from Japanese companies, Chinese American Vincent Chin was beaten to death by two white autoworkers, one allegedly saying, ``it's because of you little m-f-s that we're out of work.''

Chin's assailants never spent a day in jail and instead were only sentenced to probation and fined and the resulting outrage from the Asian American community served as a galvanizing force to organize for Asian American civil rights and advocacy, and it remains a central rallying cry and example of injustice for contemporary Asian American activism.

In the aftermath of the September 11th attack on the United States, South Asian, Muslim, and Middle Eastern Americans increasingly became the targets of violence and discrimination.

In the week following the terrorist attack, media outlets reported 645 bias incidents targeting people perceived to be Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent.

At the time, the Bush Administration condemned the harassment and urged respect for the Muslim and South Asian community, with President Bush himself stating that the perpetrators of these racialized attacks should be ``ashamed.''

Then-Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert Mueller reiterated President Bush's sentiments, stating that: ``vigilante attacks and threats against Arab-Americans will-not be tolerated.''

In the years since, the Department of Justice has investigated over 800 incidents of violence, threats, and harassment against Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian Americans, and others of perceived Middle Eastern descent.

Sparked by xenophobic rhetoric framing fault for the coronavirus around its country of origin, Asian Americans, notably those of Chinese descent or assumed Chinese descent, have suffered increased rates of violence, harassment, and intimidation over the last year.

Led by the racist rhetoric of the 45th President, targeted xenophobic and anti-Asian sentiments have exacerbated the scapegoating and targeting of the Asian American community.

Between March 16 and March 30, 2020, the worst president in history referred to COVID-19 as the ``Chinese virus'' more than 20 times, claiming that his phrasing was not racist at all, but rather accurate because the virus came from China.

He even had the word ``Corona'' crossed out of his press conference notes, replaced with ``Chinese'' handwritten above it, and he also called the virus ``Kung Flu'' at a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma on June 20, 2020 then again at a church rally in Phoenix, Arizona on June 24, 2020.

Examples of additional violent physical assaults against the Asian American community over the last year include:

1. A sixteen-year-old boy was sent to the emergency room after being physically attacked at his high school by an assailant who claimed the boy had COVID-19 simply because he was Asian.

2. An 81-year-old woman was punched in the face and lit on fire outside her home.

3. A woman was kicked, punched, and hit with an umbrella in a subway station in New York.

4. A man and his ten-year-old son were followed to a bus station by a man who was yelling and cursing at them before eventually hitting the man over the head.

5. A 61-year-old man was slashed across the face with a boxcutter on the subway in New York City. His injuries required him to receive nearly 100 stitches.

6. A woman was doused in a caustic chemical as she took out the trash; resulting in chemical burns on her face, neck and back.

7. A 52-year-old woman was shoved to the ground and hit her head on a metal newspaper stand.

8. A 51-year-old man was beaten with his own cane at a bus stop. His injuries were so severe, he lost part of a finger.

Further, in addition to these violent incidents, data shows that general and daily harassment of Asian Americans has increased in the last year, examples of which include:

1. A couple found a note pinned to their door that read: ``We're watching you f---- c---- take the chinese virus back to china. We don't want you hear [sic] infecting us with your diseases!!!!!!!!!!--Your friendly neighborhood.''

2. A woman was cursed at while taking out her trash, a man walking by yelling ``F---- Chinese'' and ``Yea, I'm talking to you, Chinese B-- --.''

3. A woman was yelled at, followed, and spit on as she walked to her gym.

4. A man was yelled at while grocery shopping, the customer in front of him at the checkout line shouting at him ``It's you people who brought the disease.''

Finally, Madam Speaker, in my home state of Texas, about this time a year ago, a Burmese American family was shopping at a Sam's Club in Midland, Texas when a man repeatedly hit the father on the back of his head and slashed at his face.

Later, the assailant returned to continue to attack the family-- stabbing their two-year-old child and slashing their six-year-old across the face.

In light of increasing attacks on Asian Americans, several members of Congress have called for a stronger hate crime tracking law to add to the existing legal framework of hate crime legislation.

Congresswoman Chu, the Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, has called on this consider new hate crime tracking legislation, noting that all of us must be vocal in rejecting xenophobia and racism.''

And I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the March 25, 2020 resolution introduced by Congresswoman Meng of New York and passed by the House on September 17, 2020, condemning anti-Asian sentiment related to COVID-19 and calling on federal law enforcement officials to work with state and local officials to investigate hate crimes and incidents against the Asian American community.

In my hometown of Houston, Texas, we know all too well the fear, horror, and heartbreak inflicted on members of vulnerable and marginalized communities when they are targeted by hate crime violence.

That is why I have reintroduced H.R. 133, the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act or ``David's Law,'' to amend the federal criminal code to impose penalties for willfully causing bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempting to cause such injury, whether or not acting under color of law, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person, where the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.

This legislation is named in honor of David Ray Ritcheson, a constituent and high school student, who was brutally beaten and left for dead simply because his assailants hated his national origin.

Madam Speaker, hate crimes are among the worst atrocities that exist in modern day society.

A hate crime is defined as the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, relation, sexual orientation, gender, and disability of the victim.

Unfortunately, hate crimes are underreported for several reasons, including fear and intimidation.

As most of us in this Congress know all too well, hate-motivated violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of our communities, impedes the movement of members of targeted groups, and prevents members of targeted groups from purchasing goods and services, obtaining, or sustaining employment, and achieving the American Dream.

The mass shootings in Georgia are one part of a nationwide pattern of Asian women's being disproportionately targeted in hate incidents, and this Resolution proclaims loud and clear that the United States Government is committed to combatting hate, bigotry and violence against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

For this reason, I urge all of my colleagues to rise with me in support of H. Res. 275--Condemning the horrific shootings in Atlanta, Georgia, on March 16, 2021, and reaffirming the House of Representative's commitment to combating hate, bigotry, and violence against the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community.

[From Buzzfeed New, Apr. 1, 2020]

A Man Who Allegedly Tried To Kill an Asian American Family Because of

the Coronavirus Could Face Hate Crime Charges

(By Julia Reinstein)

The incident is just one in a surge of racist attacks that

Asian-Americans have faced during the coronavirus pandemic.

A man who allegedly tried to kill an Asian American family

of three because he believed they were spreading the

coronavirus at a Sam's Club in Texas could face hate crime

charges, the FBI told BuzzFeed News on Wednesday.

Jose L. Gomez, 19, stabbed the three people on March 14 at

the Midland, Texas, Sam's Club before being taken down by a

store employee, who saved the family's lives and was injured

in the process, police told BuzzFeed News.

Gomez was then taken into custody by an off-duty Border

Patrol agent. He was charged with three counts of attempted

capital murder and one count of aggravated assault with a

deadly weapon.

Bernie Ramirez, the Border Patrol agent, told CBS7 he

initially approached Gomez and family with the intention of

breaking up what he thought was a fight over scarce goods.

Ramirez said ``credit is due'' to Zach Owen, the store

employee who stopped Gomez by putting him in a chokehold and

suffered stab wounds to the hand in the process.

``He went into a knife fight bare-handed,'' Ramirez said.

``He took control of the individual, and he disarmed him. If

Zach had not been there, things could've gone really badly.''

Ramirez did not immediately respond to a request for

comment. The father in the family declined to comment.

Gomez allegedly stabbed the three ``because he thought the

family was Chinese, and infecting people with the

coronavirus,'' the FBI stated in a document obtained by ABC

News.

An FBI spokesperson told BuzzFeed News they were unable to

comment on the document but confirmed that the case is being

treated as a possible hate crime,

According to the FBI report, federal law enforcement

officials are warning there could be a surge in hate crimes

against Asian Americans.

``The FBI assesses hate crime incidents against Asian

Americans likely will surge across the United States, due to

the spread of coronavirus disease . . . endangering Asian

American communities,'' the document reportedly states. ``The

FBI makes this assessment based on the assumption that a

portion of the US public will associate COVID-19 with China

and Asian American populations.''

The Texas stabbing was just one of the many racist attacks

Asian Americans have been facing amid the coronavirus

pandemic's rise in the US.

On March 11, a woman in New York punched another woman for

not wearing a face mask and ``made anti-Asian statements and

fled the location on foot.'' In February, a 16-year-old boy

was sent to the hospital after being physically attacked by

bullies who accused him of having the coronavirus. One couple

in Minnesota got a note on their door that said ``we're

watching you'' and ``take the Chinese virus back to China.''

President Donald Trump has deliberately referred to COVID-

19 as the ``Chinese virus'' on multiple occasions, which

critics have seen as a way of scapegoating China and, in

turn, inciting hatred and harassment of people of Asian

descent. The World Health Organization has urged people not

to attach locations or ethnicity to the virus to prevent

social stigma.

When questioned, Trump defended his use of the term,

``It's not racist at all, no. Not at all,'' Trump said.

``It comes from China.''

The FBI spokesperson told BuzzFeed News the agency ``will

use all authority granted to us by federal law to investigate

and hold those who commit violent acts accountable for their

actions.''

``During the COVID-19 pandemic, we want to remind everyone

that any violent criminal act against any person because of

their race, ethnicity or national origin is a hate crime,''

the spokesperson said. ``This includes violence toward Asian

Americans or individuals from East Asian countries.''

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 403 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 403, providing for consideration of H.R. 1629, the Fairness in Orphan Drug Exclusivity Act, under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It also provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H. Res. 275, the condemning the horrific shootings in Atlanta, Georgia, on March 16, 2021, and reaffirming the House of Representatives' commitment to combating hate, bigotry, and violence against the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community, under a closed rule.

It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

The rule deems as passed H. Res. 398, a resolution recognizing the forthcoming centennial of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre.

The rule amends H.R. 188 to provide recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through July 1, 2021.

Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested rollcall votes on suspension bills considered on May 17 or 18. This authority lasts through May 20.

Madam Speaker, we are here today to consider two timely and important bills. The first is a resolution from our colleague, Congresswoman Judy Chu, condemning the horrific, shootings, in Atlanta, Georgia, in March, and confirming the House of Representatives' commitment to combating hate and violence against the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community.

I want to start by offering my condolences, prayers, and support for the family and friends of the eight people murdered in Atlanta on March 16 and the thousands of Asian Americans who have been physically or verbally attacked over the course of the pandemic.

The horrific act of gun violence that took eight lives in Atlanta, including six Asian women, is a tragedy unambiguously rooted in hate. It is a tragedy that followed 4,000 reported hate crimes against Asian Americans over the past year, and it is a tragedy that followed decades of bigotry, discrimination, and indifference toward the AAPI community.

We must recognize that physical and verbal attacks against people of Asian descent are not a new phenomenon and that our country has a shameful past of violence and discrimination directed against Asian Americans. From the Chinese Exclusion Act to the internment of Japanese Americans, to the innumerable acts of individual violence that have cost so many their lives or livelihoods, a vile and persistent racism has denied many people the basic safeties and individual freedoms that some others take for granted.

But we also need to recognize that at a time when we are all dealing with the hardships caused by the pandemic, Asian Americans have had to deal with additional pain, fear, and loss brought on by the callous and careless rhetoric of opportunistic politicians and bigots. I have heard from my constituents and staff members in my office about the pain that the increase in verbal and physical attacks has caused throughout our community.

I admire the incredible work being done by AAPI advocates and organizers in southeastern Pennsylvania and across the Nation to bring attention to anti-Asian discrimination and to call for change. Groups in my district, such as Asian Americans United, Cambodian Association of Greater Philadelphia, Laos In The House, VietLead, and others across the United States, have mobilized whole communities to come together and stand firm against hate and racism.

The anti-hate rallies and vigils organized in response to this year's shocking attacks are a resounding reminder that hate is not welcome in our cities and towns, but also that standing up to hatred requires more than just thoughts and prayers. It requires all of us to recognize and call out racism when we see it, to work with our neighbors to protect everyone in our communities, and to lift up voices that aren't always heard.

As we continue to confront the systemic racism that plagues so much of our culture, the passage of this resolution by the House must be part of a greater holistic effort to provide all Americans with prosperity, justice, and freedom from fear.

Congress cannot keep waiting for problems to boil over in order to do something about them. I ask that all of my colleagues keep that in mind as we work to address systemic racism and the other pressing problems of our day.

I thank Congresswoman Chu for her leadership, and I thank her and the

members of the Georgia delegation for introducing this important resolution.

Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 1629, the Fairness in Orphan Drug Exclusivity Act. This bill is sponsored by my good friend and colleague from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Congresswoman Dean, who has bravely shared her family's experience with the hardships caused by substance use disorder, and who has been a tireless advocate for Federal solutions to the opioid epidemic.

This much-needed bill would close a loophole in our Federal drug approval laws, promoting greater competition and lower prices and allowing more medications to treat opioid use disorder, as well as other diseases, to come to market. Closing this loophole would increase access to low-cost treatments and would prevent pharmaceutical companies from abusing the current law to boost drug prices for medications that could be sold by competitors at much lower prices.

In particular, this bill would reduce the price of buprenorphine, a drug that is critically important for medically assisted treatment, or MAT, of opioid abuse disorder, but which has been made more costly and less available due to abuse of the current laws.

The opioid epidemic has devastated families in my district and across the country. Too many communities have experienced the terrible toll of opioid addiction, and I am glad this is an issue on which Democrats and Republicans have been able to work together and achieve real results for the American people.

Since 2018, Congress has been able to pass multiple bipartisan bills to increase funding for substance use disorder, provide more treatments and medications for those suffering from opioid addiction, and improve access to mental health services.

The Fairness in Orphan Drug Exclusivity Act is a straightforward bill with bipartisan support and sponsorship that passed the House of Representatives last Congress, and it was on track to pass this Congress last week before inexplicably being derailed when one of its former sponsors whipped votes against it.

I thank my Pennsylvania colleagues, Representatives Dean and Fitzpatrick, for their bipartisan leadership on this bill, which is so important, not just for Pennsylvanians, but for families across this country who have struggled to obtain effective and affordable treatment for loved ones suffering from substance use disorder. I urge its prompt passage.

Lastly, I want to voice my support for H. Res. 398, a resolution introduced by Congresswoman Jackson Lee to recognize the forthcoming centennial of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. This event was one of the most abhorrent instances of racial violence in our Nation's history, and it is history that we should not ignore or forget.

With this resolution, we can at least recognize the people, families, and descendants irreparably harmed that day, even if we cannot give them the justice they deserved.

I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, for her work to bring this resolution to the floor and to ensure that we recognize this terrible moment in our collective past.

I thank all of my colleagues who helped craft the bills we are considering today. I look forward to supporting this rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, like many, I am so excited to see our country begin to unwind many of the COVID-19 precautions of the last year, but we are not in the clear yet.

It is no secret that many Members of this body have refused to be vaccinated, and many of the same Members have also shown repeated disregard for the dangers posed by the pandemic. We need to extend certain measures in the House to provide the House with flexibility to ensure that Congress can expeditiously respond to the future needs created by the pandemic and the economy and to keep all of those who serve here safe.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a former member of the Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleagues, I must respectfully decline to chase the red herring that has been lobbed onto the House floor.

A vote on the PQ is strictly a procedural vote to move a bill forward. And as our colleagues know, voting ``no'' would simply mean that we would hand control of the House floor to them, which I decline to do.

As our colleagues know, they are under no obligation to offer any specific amendment, even if they faithfully promise to do so. So let's not distract from the bills that we are here to move forward today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the lead sponsor of H. Res. 398, recognizing the forthcoming centennial of the 1921 Tulsa massacre.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

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

I wanted to mention that Senator Elizabeth Warren, a native of Oklahoma, carries the Senate version of H. Res. 398 recognizing the Tulsa centennial.

When I go home and meet with constituents, they want to know what we are doing here to make their lives better, not whether we have succeeded in obstructing the passage of necessary or popular legislation or in shutting down Congress. I suspect that is true for most Members, and I value those with whom I can work in good faith.

This Congress has already seen its fair share of parliamentary tricks to disrupt the legislative process, and I applaud the leadership's efforts to keep Members and staff safe, to advance legislation that will end the pandemic, and to serve the American people.

Let's be honest about why we are taking up floor time to debate and pass the orphan drug bill today, a bill with broad bipartisan support that passed without a single objection last term.

Last week's ``no'' vote by some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle was incredibly disrespectful to the Americans we are all here to represent. Those Members voting ``no'' effectively told their constituents that they care more about whose name goes on a bill than they care about actually passing legislation.

Like my colleagues, I am frustrated that this bill did not pass on suspension last week. The opioid epidemic is a serious issue. Families in my district and across the country know firsthand the hardships caused by opioid abuse and addiction, and this issue deserves to be taken seriously and addressed by Congress, which is why we are bringing this bill back to the floor a week after one of its former sponsors blocked its

passage because his feelings were hurt when he wasn't asked to lead the bill this term.

Our colleagues extol, when convenient, the virtues of unity and bipartisanship, but it is important for them to realize that bipartisanship relies upon trust. And in the wake of January 6, despite having witnessed the carnage created by falsehoods about the election results, the majority of our Republican colleagues voted with no evidence to cancel the electoral votes of several States.

For those of us who represent Pennsylvania, which was ground zero for those falsehoods and the efforts to undermine and overturn our electoral process, it is particularly tough to trust Members who have shown more interest in silencing those who would challenge the lies than in defending the Constitution.

It is a shame that a bipartisan bill to combat opioid abuse needs to be reconsidered under a rule, and I hope this time around my colleagues do what is right and pass the bill to improve access to low-cost medications to combat opioid addiction.

We are here to pass legislation for the American people, not to put our names on things. Stunts like what we saw last week are disrespectful to the House, to its Members, and most of all to the people we are here to represent.

I thank all of our colleagues who helped craft the bills we are considering today. I look forward to supporting this rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today's rule covers two items. The first item I will discuss is H.R. 3237, a supplemental appropriations bill intended to provide security funding for the Capitol complex, including funding for the U.S. Capitol Police, the National Guard, and other agencies that responded to the January 6 attack on the Capitol complex, as well as to provide funds to address the coronavirus throughout a variety of agencies Congress directly controls.

Although the process leading to this bill started out with bipartisan negotiations, unfortunately, no deal was reached. Instead of negotiating with Republicans on our counterproposal, as is typical in these discussions, Democrats walked away, once again, choosing to go it alone with the bipartisan bill before us today.

Madam Speaker, it is truly disappointing that Democrats were unwilling to continue to work towards an agreement with Republicans on a matter of this magnitude, and given that the Senate is in no hurry to take up this legislation, a few additional weeks of discussion could and likely would have led to a bipartisan product instead of a product destined for the legislative graveyard.

In the wake of the January 6 attack, I would hope that the majority would join with Republicans and choose to speak with one voice. Instead, like so many items in this Congress, the majority has insisted on its way or the highway. And today, they are doing it so again with this partisan bill.

House Republicans and even some Senate Democrats have concerns with this package. The bill creates a rapid response force with the D.C. National Guard. Any rapid response force intended to provide backup for the United States Capitol Police and to protect the Capitol complex should be under the control of, and housed within Congress.

As a number of my colleagues mentioned during the debate in the Committee on Rules yesterday, housing these capabilities within the D.C. National Guard introduces the exact same concerns my friends on the other side raised in the aftermath of January 6, that Congress would be reliant on the executive branch to deploy this rapid response force.

Madam Speaker, I have deep concerns about putting this rapid response force under the control of any other entity, whether that is the government or the District of Columbia or the executive branch. I also have grave concerns about assigning this role to the military since this is undoubtedly a law enforcement function.

Further bipartisan and bicameral negotiations would have helped us to tailor the package to allay some of the serious concerns Members have, and at the same time would direct funds to where they are needed most.

Madam Speaker, I do know that what the House passes this week will not be the final word. And I am hopeful that in the not-too-distant future, the House will take up a different version of this package, one that has been negotiated with Republicans and that can pass the Senate, and I look forward to supporting that package before the President signs it into law.

Madam Speaker, our second item for today is H.R. 3233, a bill which establishes a national commission to investigate the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol complex.

I thank Ranking Member John Katko and Chairman Bennie Thompson of the Committee on Homeland Security for their hard work in putting this legislation together. They took an unworkable and hyper-partisan proposal from the Speaker and turned it into a far better bill. I commend these two gentlemen for their desire to find bipartisan agreement.

However, I continue to have concerns with the legislation, concerns that could have been addressed if several of the amendments proposed at our Committee on Rules hearing would have been made in order.

On an issue this serious, the full House deserves the opportunity to debate and discuss areas of disagreement to see if we can find common ground. One of these areas of continued disagreement is that of scope, which remains too narrow in the proposal.

As the culture of our national politics has coarsened over the past several years, there has been a resulting broader wave of political violence in this country. This includes events like the 2017 domestic terror attack that targeted Republican Members of Congress at a baseball practice, and which would have been catastrophically worse but for the bravery of the U.S. Capitol Police officers who were present that day.

It includes the April 2 attack that killed U.S. Capitol Police Officer Billy Evans.

It includes the wave of violence, rioting, and property destruction that swept across the country last summer.

The commission should have specific flexibility to examine these events in their appropriate context.

I am also concerned about current language in the bill related to the ongoing work of law enforcement to bring the perpetrators of January 6 to justice. There are multiple investigations already underway. Several committees in both the House and the Senate have held, and will continue to hold, hearings on the topic.

The Architect of the Capitol is reviewing security vulnerabilities in the Capitol complex. As of yesterday, more than 450 people have been arrested in connection with the events of January 6, with at least 100 more arrests to come. All of these individuals will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as well they should.

Given each of these ongoing investigations and proceedings, I fear that adding yet another investigation from this proposed commission would only muddy the waters and make achieving due process and reaching justice all that much harder.

For that reason, I supported an amendment offered in the Rules Committee that would ensure that the ongoing and critically important work of law enforcement would continue unimpeded by this commission. For reasons I do not fully understand, this amendment was blocked.

Moreover, in my personal opinion, the commission would benefit from any revelations emerging from the investigations currently underway.

In addition, I note that it was 14 months between the events of 9/11 and the creation of the 9/11 commission. During that time, many facts emerged that informed the investigation of the commission. The same could be true here. As such, it makes sense to take more time prior to commencing an undertaking like this commission.

Though I have reservations about the bill, I have no reservations at all about the job Ranking Member Katko and Chairman Thompson have done. I am hopeful that this bill will be improved further as it proceeds through the legislative process.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up House Resolution 153, a resolution condemning the recent hate crimes committed against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel), my good friend, the author of the resolution, to further explain the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, for his excellent work on this bill; and I want to thank his ranking member and negotiating partner. I think they, frankly, moved us in the right direction toward agreement.

We continue to have concerns. It is a long, legislative process. Obviously, we will have to pass something through the Senate as well. So it is my hope we can build upon their work and continue to move forward.

We are not prepared at this time to provide huge support for this bill. We think it can continue to improve. But that doesn't take anything away from my appreciation and admiration for the gentleman from Mississippi for his good work. We will continue to try and work with him and others and get to a place we can all come to agree.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule. The majority is proposing two significant pieces of legislation today. Unfortunately, concerns remain with both of them.

H.R. 3237, the supplemental appropriations package intended to provide funds for the security of the Capitol complex is, unfortunately and unnecessarily, a partisan bill.

It was the subject of bipartisan negotiations, and there is no reason we could not have gotten to a bipartisan result had the majority wanted to do so. Instead, we are left with a partisan package that does not meet the needs of the institution and, frankly, has no chance of becoming law in its current form.

I would urge my friends particularly to look at the section relating to the rapid response force. That is something where I think, honestly, with a little bit more reflection, we could find some common ground.

I think it is a mistake to put a force like that under the control of either the District of Columbia or the executive branch. I think we need direct control of that ourselves. I know some of my colleagues on the other side feel strongly that way, too. It simply

makes sense that if we are having a crisis here, we ought to make the decision if we need an extra force.

I think if we keep working at it, we are going to find some common ground there, and I hope that we do.

H.R. 3233 establishes a commission to investigate the January 6 attack on the Capitol complex. Here, too, I want to acknowledge that real progress was made in the course of negotiations, and I want to commend particularly Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Katko for having brought us closer to agreement.

However, on our side, many of us continue to have reservations about this bill and the parameters of the commission itself. After all, the events of January 6 did not occur in a vacuum. If we truly hope to find answers for the American people, then we must take into account everything, all the other political violence that has taken place in recent years.

I would just ask my friends to go back--and I know they have--and look at the 9/11 Commission, which did exactly that. It didn't just look at 9/11. It looked at the attack on the USS Cole. It went back to the attack on the African Embassies that we experienced.

There is room here, I think, for context and additional discussion. We also have concerns structurally with some of the staffing provisions and other items that I have mentioned that we hopefully would look at. We would like to continue to work on that.

I think we could have made good progress had any of the amendments that were offered in the Rules Committee been made in order. My friends chose not to do that. That is their privilege to do so, but I think it probably obstructed what could have been a larger bipartisan vote for this particular piece of legislation.

But, again, we will see going forward. What we do here isn't the final arbiter. This is one stage in the process. The United States Senate is the next stop. Hopefully, there will be some changes made there. Then, it will have to come back here. We should look at both of these matters as stops in a journey, or parts of a journey, not as the final decision on any of them.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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