Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 21) calling on Vice President Michael R. Pence to convene and mobilize the principal officers of the executive departments of the Cabinet to activate section 4 of the 25th Amendment to declare President Donald J. Trump incapable of executing the duties of his office and to immediately exercise powers as acting President; and for other purposes.

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

Madam Speaker, first, let me commend Chairman Ryan for his cooperation on this bill. He has worked in good faith with me and my staff to include requests in this bill every step of the way, and I really appreciate it. I think it is a good model for the rest of how Congress should work, and I would work with him anytime. I want to say thank you to his staff and to the staff under Chairwoman DeLauro, Steve Marchese. I want to thank my staff, Michelle Reinshuttle for getting us to this point, although, I don't believe we are quite there yet. I am going to explain why.

Madam Speaker, I have to rise in opposition to H.R. 4346, the fiscal year 2022 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. This bill does include some provisions that I support, including critically needed funding to address the requirements of the Capitol complex.

It provides funding that allows Members and our staff to better serve our constituents by providing better software to improve the accessibility of casework forms that our offices use to help constituents resolve problems and issues with Federal agencies. It implements measures to increase staff retention, and it allows offices to acquire new technologies to strengthen the protection and productivity of our IT infrastructure.

This bill also supports the critical mission of the Capitol Police by providing funding for additional personnel to replenish their really depleted ranks, new leadership training initiatives, and additional resources so they can continue to protect Members, staff, and visitors who come and occupy the Halls of Congress on a daily basis.

In the aftermath of an incredibly difficult and challenging year for the men and women of the Capitol Police, these measures are really an important step toward improving the police force.

However, Madam Speaker, while there are many parts of this bill that I do support, this bill, like the others that the majority has put forward, is based on what I believe is a flawed fiscal foundation. The majority is forging ahead with massive increases to nondefense spending. The bill we are considering today includes a nearly 13 percent increase over current levels. I am going to explain why that in context creates some problems. At a time of record high deficits and debt, we need, I believe, a more measured fiscal response.

In addition, the majority has also included controversial policy riders that our side of the aisle opposes. With the approach that the majority is taking with this bill--and really all of them in the appropriations packages we are considering here today--we are on the path to yet another continuing resolution. If we are to break this cycle, our majority counterparts need to be more willing to work with the minority on all the bills to create a more bipartisan support that garners more of a bipartisan thumbs up.

Furthermore, the majority has not put forward any of the Capitol Police reforms to the board that governs the Capitol Police or its leadership structure, and that is a real sticking point, Madam Speaker. Including funding to hire more officers and to get more equipment is a necessary step. I would go to bat for that any day of the week. We will never see lasting improvement to the operation of the force or officer morale without these necessary reforms. We are going to continue to see the erosion of the force until those changes are made.

As we grapple with the trillions in new spending that the majority has passed and is proposing already 6

months into this year, I want to emphasize this point, we must course correct now rather than wait until our Nation has passed the point of no return. The Democrat majority got out of the gates by pushing through a $1.9 trillion package that includes bailouts for States like California that were already raking in billions more in State revenue than was previously forecast.

My colleagues across the aisle and this administration are insisting on using reconciliation to force through $4 trillion more on a gigantic wish list.

For perspective, the spending I outlined is above and beyond the normal congressional appropriations. Specifically, it is nearly four times what the Democrats are proposing to spend on this and these appropriations bills that we are considering.

Last year when the entire Nation was grappling with COVID-related shutdowns, when hospitals were down to their last box of surgical gloves, and Congress had to step in to make sure that our health system and our communities didn't collapse, those were needed dollars. But we should not make the mistake that national emergencies like the COVID pandemic should green-light and invite further spending that is going to usher in record inflation, trillions more in debt, and, honestly, a reckless increase in spending.

I fear that some here are simply not aware of how spiking the prices are of food, of gas, and of other everyday items impacting families. Unbridled spending brings on the kind of inflation that increases prices exponentially. When we talk about saddling the next generation with crushing debt, we are talking about your kids, Madam Speaker, my kids, and their grandkids, and they are going to have to pay for these decisions.

I believe that we can do better. The funding increases in this bill I think are going to fuel that fire. I think we need to recalibrate.

Madam Speaker, for all these reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill at this time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), who is the distinguished ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak on the motion to recommit that the gentleman from Arkansas offered. I know it sounds like, with the majority, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

I think that there are a lot of good things in this bill that I support. But the biggest challenge for me, having spent this year, like the rest of us, trying to help our families, our constituents move on through COVID, help our small businesses survive, and then starting off this year in the manner that we did and recognizing the impact on not just the Capitol campus, but the men and women who protect us, the Capitol Police, I really feel like in this bill, the Legislative Branch appropriations, there needed to be some significant reforms to some of the failures in response that we experienced.

Now, I know that there are other efforts, not related to this bill, that are looking at other actors, other players. I am setting all of that aside because I don't have control over that. But I do have a say here, with my voting card, on the Legislative Branch appropriations bill.

What is frustrating to me--and I heard, you know, my good friend from

Ohio and the Speaker mention: Well, we did this supplemental and put all of this other stuff in here for the Capitol Police. Well, there are things that were left out of that supplemental that are so crucially significant to reforms that will help prevent another January 6, and they are in the motion to recommit.

Let me explain a couple of those. One of those that we have in the Republican motion to recommit is a reform to the Capitol Police Board. We know that there was a major failure and breakdown in communication on the Capitol Police Board, which inhibited the response, the coordinated, collective response of the law enforcement here.

Talk to any police officer who bravely defended us, and they will tell you that they weren't getting clear directives in their headpieces. They will tell you that the coordination effort from the leadership broke down, and they were doing everything they could on the front lines themselves. So a rational response to that would be: Why did that break down and what can we do to fix it?

One of those things is to provide oversight, congressional oversight, over that Capitol Police Board by requiring that board, who made those decisions, who left a lot of our police officers on their own, to meet together in front of congressional committees, the committees of oversight.

As it stands now, we can't get the entire police board together in one room for a hearing. The gentleman and I--on Legislative Branch appropriations--we got to meet with different members of the police board in different hearings at different times. It was helpful. But to really correct the problem--and when you ask each of them: Where was your failing on January 6? They all do this--or they did this. There are now new actors in there.

But I look at the function of that board, and I think, okay, common sense would be to put the Architect of the Capitol, the two Sergeants at Arms, and the Capitol Police chief all on a witness panel in front of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee or the House Administration Committee or the Senate Rules Committee.

That wasn't in your supplemental, that is not in this Legislative Branch appropriations bill, or in any of President Biden's rescue plans. We do throw a lot of money at it, but we are not fixing a structural, fundamental problem that helped complicate our response.

Our motion to recommit fixes that. It simply changes the language, and it requires them to come before the committees of jurisdiction together and answer questions of oversight capacity from Members of Congress. That is a simple fix. It shouldn't be partisan. It is not in the underlying bill, and it should be. Our motion to recommit does that.

Another thing that we do in our motion to recommit to improve the underlying bill is, we require an improved and streamlined response, and we give that authority to the Capitol Police chief to call in the National Guard on a quick, developing emergency.

One of the things that we heard in the aftermath of January 6 was he said, she said. I called them in, they said they couldn't come. This person said they couldn't come. I mean, we just got very convoluted responses into why the National Guard wasn't here quickly.

Again, I recognize there are other efforts looking into other actors on that front. I am not getting into that. What I am talking about is what we have control over right here.

The underlying Legislative Branch bill does not improve that streamline process. In fact, it leaves in place the process whereby the chief of police has to go through this bureaucratic, arcane process to get permission from every member of that board before they can respond to an immediate emergency and request the National Guard. Well, that was part of the problem on January 6.

Our motion to recommit fixes that. It says that the Capitol Police chief, in an emergency, a quick, developing emergency, can call in the National Guard and have the authority to request them to come. It also has a failsafe in there that says, if the Capitol Police Board gets their act together and meets quickly and sees the issue differently, they can rescind that authority. But what it does, it is an opt-in. Automatically, the police chief has authority to call in the reserves when there is an emergency.

Just like you see where a chief in a major metropolitan area has the authority to call in things, and then they are accountable to the mayor or to the city council, but they have that authority. Right now the Capitol Police chief doesn't have that authority, that was a problem on January 6. Unfortunately, if this bill passes as it is, it will still be a problem today, 7 months later.

Again, there are things in the underlying bill that I like and support, but it is like having the salt for your steak, but you don't actually have the beef. You have got to have that sizzling steak and you add the salt to it and it is a wonderful meal. That is how I look at this.

We do want to put the money forward to make sure that we are adding to the force and we are putting in training programs and that is in this underlying bill. Those are good things. But we have to change the fundamental flaws with how the Capitol Police Board operates.

This is the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. This is the appropriate place. I would have yielded if the House Administration Committee wanted to do that. Had they done it, you wouldn't hear me piping up about it, but they haven't. It needs to be done so that we are taking responsibility for failures here on our campus that we can correct. So I urge adoption of the motion to recommit.

One more thing that I think is really significant, and this is where I differ from the gentleman from Maryland, who I also have great respect for, is the underlying bill talks about pay and making sure that we are adding more police officers to the force. I am there every day of the week and twice on Sunday. The problem is, they are going to hit a cap.

So when a police officer, which we saw in January, February, March, they would work their regular hours, and then because they were short- staffed and there weren't enough officers on the force, they would be called to work overtime. They are accruing that overtime, and at some point, they will have earned too much money to get paid all of it because there is a cap in law that says they can only make so much.

The underlying bill does not fix that cap. However, our motion to recommit does. Our motion to recommit removes that cap so that those officers who are owed that overtime, because they worked their tails off weeks on end, will be able to get that pay and not risk being furloughed as we get to the end of the year.

Again, there are good things in the underlying bill, but it is not quite good enough. We can make it better. We can make it better by adopting the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of closing.

Again, I just want to say it has been a privilege to be in this process.

You know, it is ironic to me, because the Legislative Branch appropriations bill is generally one that significantly only impacts the Capitol community. I serve an amazing district in southwest Washington, 2,500-plus miles away from this campus. Generally, the Legislative Branch appropriations bill isn't high on their radar, until this year, until we saw that there are events and there are actors who we are going to have to protect against.

We are going to have to protect the guests and the visitors. This is the people's House, and I want the people from my district to have the right and the trust to come here and feel safe, to be able to have their voices heard. That is why this bill went from kind of being one that most people didn't pay attention to, to a lot more attention, a lot more front and center.

It is such an honor and privilege to get to work on this because I believe, in a very strong spirit of bipartisanship, we can make sure that we are lifting up and girding up the Capitol Police force, making sure that the Sergeant at Arms is working together

with the Architect of the Capitol to ensure the safety and continuity of the work of the people's House.

This is the Constitution in action. It is a privilege to get to work on this. I think that we can improve this underlying bill. I think that we need to adopt the motion to recommit. I think we need to introduce some of these ideas so that we can stave off a continuing resolution in the eleventh hour.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the motion to recommit, and in its absence, I do believe we need to send this bill back in order to get it completely right. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 85 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), 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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 85, providing for consideration of H.R. 447, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Scott, makes in order 26 amendments, provides en bloc authority to Chairman Scott, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 11 under a closed rule. It self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Yarmuth. It also provides 3 hours of debate with 2 hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget and 1 hour equally divided and controlled by Representatives Beyer of Virginia and Schweikert of Arizona, or their respective designees.

The rule also provides that H. Res. 73 is hereby adopted. The rule updates the process by which Members can appeal fines for refusing to wear a mask or for taking photographs or recording audio or video on the House floor to align with the Ethics Committee appeal procedures established in H. Res. 73.

Finally, the rule extends standard district work period instructions, same day, and suspension authority through March 12, 2021.

Mr. Speaker, the National Apprenticeship Act is critical workforce development legislation that will invest $3.5 billion to create nearly 1 million new apprenticeship opportunities over the next 5 years. This is a history investment in workforce training, and I am so pleased to support this effort.

Skilled workers are the backbone of our economy. And apprenticeships provide a unique opportunity to grow and expand access to this workforce.

Not only do apprenticeship programs provide pathways to meaningful and sustainable careers, they are critical to expanding our Nation's skilled workforce. When I meet with local businesses in my district in Rochester, New York, I regularly hear that their greatest challenge is finding skilled labor to fill positions and keep their businesses thriving.

Apprenticeships provide an invaluable pathway to engage workers, establish connections with high-demand industries, and set workers on a path to a rewarding and sustainable career.

I note that as the son of an individual who dropped out of high school at the age of 16, my dad, after service in Korea in the United States Army, came home and got involved in an apprenticeship for the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 13 Union and had a long, long career where he retired at the age of 70 after having supported a family of seven. What was directly responsible for that was the apprenticeship program and his ability to build that sustained career.

I am particularly proud that a bill I introduced with my colleague, Congresswoman Trahan, has been included in the text of the National Apprenticeship Act. Our bill helps scale up participation among populations not typically engaged in apprenticeships, particularly small- and medium-sized businesses, and together we can create new opportunities in high-demand industries.

Now, more than ever, these programs are critical to grapple with the long-term economic impacts of COVID-19.

This week we will also begin the next phase of addressing the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic through H. Con. Res. 11, a budget resolution for fiscal year 2021. Passing this budget resolution is a necessary step to fast-track essential COVID relief, the American Rescue Plan.

This plan will deliver the direct support the American public needs, including a national vaccination program, direct aid to individuals and families, housing and nutrition assistance, and expansion and extension of unemployment insurance, small business assistance, and resources to protect first responders and frontline workers.

Our Nation has endured an unprecedented health and economic crisis which has now claimed the lives of nearly half a million Americans. After 11 months, far too many Americans are still barely scraping by or falling further behind, through no fault of their own, as they lose jobs or see smaller paychecks. We need immediate, bold action to change the course of the virus and stabilize our economy.

Beginning the budget reconciliation process does not preclude a strong bipartisan agreement on a relief package that can gain wide support in both the House and the Senate. Let me repeat that. It does not preclude a strong, bipartisan agreement on a relief package that can gain wide support in our House and across the building in the Senate. But it does ensure that Congress will be able to move forward without becoming delayed by partisan gridlock at a time when so many lives and livelihoods are at stake.

The budget resolution before us provides a framework for reconciliation with a target of up to $1.9 trillion, allocated across 12 congressional committees. The resolution instructs these committees to report legislation consistent with their targets to the Budget Committee by February 16. The Budget Committee will then combine the legislation--without substantive revision--and prepare it for floor consideration.

The 2021 budget resolution is not a comprehensive blueprint for the next 10 years. It is designed solely to respond to the ongoing crisis and to deliver critical relief as quickly as possible.

Once we have finished the work of passing a complete COVID response package, I look forward to continuing our work on the Budget Committee to craft a complete forward-looking budget resolution for fiscal year 2022.

We have already lost so much time. Passing this resolution ensures that relief can get to Americans in need, who cannot wait another minute for help.

Mr. Speaker, I would also take a moment to recognize that, less than 1 month ago, this Chamber was besieged by antidemocracy extremists who intended to harm this institution and even kill some of our colleagues.

The rule provides penalties for any Member of the House who endangers colleagues by violating the rules of this Chamber. Members are not, under any circumstances, permitted to bring firearms on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. That has been in law and regulation since 1967.

As President Ronald Reagan said: ``Trust, but verify.''

Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, there should be no problem with requiring Members to walk through metal detectors into the Chamber, ensuring that everyone is following the same rules, ensuring the safety of each and every Member of this body, and ensuring that many members of our staff who work here day in and day out are protected.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and H. Con. Res. 11 and the National Apprenticeship Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say to the distinguished gentleman, my friend: These are not partisan priorities; these are American priorities.

I doubt very much that most Americans care about the process we use as they struggle to feed their families or as they struggle to pay their rent each month, when they face unemployment that could be extended. But here is an opportunity for us to work together. This is the beginning of the process, and we will continue to encourage bipartisan discussion on a budget resolution that provides meaningful relief for millions of Americans affected by this virus.

As it relates to the National Apprenticeship Act, I would also suggest that this is a bipartisan bill. I can name the Members of my colleagues across the aisle: Mr. Fitzpatrick; Mr. McKinley; Members Bacon and Bost; my friend, Rodney Davis, from Illinois; John Katko, whose district abuts mine; Andy Garbarino, my friend from New York; Representatives Stauber, Kinzinger, Stivers--all Republicans who support and sponsor the National Apprenticeship Act. So this is a bipartisan bill, and I will continue to advocate for its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will admit that there are few people I respect more than my distinguished colleague and friend from the Rules Committee, the ranking member, Mr. Cole.

But I think as it relates to the budget, as I understand it, the Budget Committee chair, Mr. Yarmuth, has continued to extend an invitation to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work together.

And we do want to work together. We want to forge a bipartisan agreement. This today begins a process, however, that can move us toward reconciliation because we understand that the American people are in crisis. America is in crisis.

So while we need to move ahead, and we would like to move ahead with a bipartisan agreement, we cannot sit idly by in the instance that progress is not made.

I think it was President Kennedy in his inauguration, nearly 60 years ago, who said, ``Sincerity is always subject to proof.'' So prove to us your sincerity. Let's work together. And in the interim, we are going to move ahead with this resolution with the support of the Members, and I certainly hope that they will do that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman's point, I appreciate the passion with which the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee makes his argument, but why are we moving ahead, he asked.

Why we are moving ahead today?

The President ran on this very relief agenda and won the popular vote in the United States by more than 8 million votes. We are moving ahead because elections do matter, and the argument that President Biden made is that this country needed swift, significant, and robust relief. That is why we are moving ahead.

Now, I will continue to say--and I am sure my colleagues will continue to say--that the Democrat majority invites bipartisan conversation. We would invite all the Members on the other side to come together in a meaningful way to talk about unemployment insurance for the millions of Americans who are out of work, through no fault of their own--millions.

Hundreds of thousands are filing every week for the first time. Millions of Americans don't have enough food on the table. One out of every eight Americans are saying they don't have enough money for food to put on the table.

This is for the millions of Americans who don't have enough money to pay their rent or pay their mortgage, and for the millions of small businesses--or the tens of thousands of small businesses struggling every single week, again, through no fault of their own.

Why are we moving ahead today?

Because there is no more time left on the clock. We need to move ahead in order to provide the substantial relief.

I would also suggest that those who will say that this is too expensive, you only look to find economists all over this country beginning with the head of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, who was appointed by the President to his position, who has consistently said that the worst thing we can do is make too small of an investment. We must

make a robust investment. It is what President Bident talked about repeatedly through this campaign.

There is no hidden agenda here. This is, in fact, the agenda that was talked about repeatedly throughout the campaign. The American public resoundingly responded to the package that the President has now put forward, the package which we would like to take up. We would certainly like to do it with our brothers and sisters on the other side of the aisle, but we are prepared, if not, to respond to the needs of millions of Americans who are in crisis.

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

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

Once again, I just say that those Americans who are watching what we do here today and over the next several days, they are going to be asking the question: What are you doing in Washington that will help the average man or woman and child who suffers the ravages of this disease and the economic fallout?

When I talk to people in Rochester, New York--and I am sure when each of us goes back to our home districts--people aren't asking about the nuance of legislative procedures. They are asking about what the government is going to do for them as we face the greatest pandemic in a century and the greatest economic challenge in nearly a century both at the same time. We have so many other challenges as well, but the House of Representatives is going to move forward. This resolution does that. It says that we will certainly encourage bipartisan agreements, bipartisan conversations, and bipartisan action.

The President's conversations with members of the Senate yesterday indicate his willingness to do that. But we cannot wait. We have waited far too long. Too many Americans have died and too many families have faced the crisis of their lifetimes because of the inaction here in Washington. So we must move ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their support of the rule before us today. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Vice President for his excellent leadership, for his professionalism, and, frankly, for his faithfulness to our Constitution.

Not only would it be an abuse of the 25th Amendment for Mike Pence to invoke it to make a political statement, it is clearly not our role in Congress to do what we are doing here tonight or what is proposed to be done by the majority.

Speaker Pelosi claims that President Trump incited the mob that attacked the Capitol at a rally. As Mr. McClintock spoke earlier, he read the President's statement. He encouraged people to come peaceably and patriotically.

The Washington Post is reporting something that I would hope that our chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence would know about. The FBI report warned of war at the Capitol the day before the attack on our Capitol. I am curious how someone proposes that the President incited the mob at a rally the day before the rally.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article.

[From The Washington Post, Jan. 12, 2021]

FBI Report Warned of `War' at Capitol, Contradicting Claims There Was

No Indication of Looming Violence

(By Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky)

A day before rioters stormed Congress, an FBI office in

Virginia issued an explicit warning that extremists were

preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and

``war,'' according to an internal document reviewed by The

Washington Post that contradicts a senior official's

declaration the bureau had no intelligence indicating anyone

at last week's demonstrations in support of President Trump

planned to do harm.

A situational information report approved for release the

day before the U.S. Capitol riot painted a dire portrait of

dangerous plans, including individuals sharing a map of the

complex's tunnels, and possible rally points for would-be

conspirators to meet in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts

and South Carolina and head in groups to Washington.

``As of 5 January 2021, FBI Norfolk received information

indicating calls for violence in response to `unlawful

lockdowns' to begin on 6 January 2021 in Washington, D.C.,''

the document says. ``An online thread discussed specific

calls for violence to include stating `Be ready to fight.

Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in,

and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being

spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or

a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we

die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal.''

BLM is probably a reference to the Black Lives Matter

movement for racial justice. Pantifa is a derogatory term for

antifa, a far-left anti-fascist movement whose adherents

sometimes engage in violent clashes with right-wing

extremists.

Yet even with that information in hand, the report's

unidentified author expressed concern that the FBI might be

encroaching on free-speech rights.

The warning is the starkest evidence yet of the sizable

intelligence failure that preceded the mayhem, which claimed

the lives of five people, although one law enforcement

official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid

disciplinary action, said the failure was not one of

intelligence but of acting on the intelligence.

At the FBI office in Norfolk, the report was written within

45 minutes of receiving the information, officials said, and

shared with counterparts in Washington.

The head of the FBI's Washington Field Office, Steven

D'Antuono, told reporters on Friday that the agency did not

have intelligence suggesting the pro-Trump rally would be

anything more than a lawful demonstration. During a news

conference Tuesday, held after The Post's initial publication

of this report, he said the alarming Jan. 5 intelligence

document was shared ``with all our law enforcement partners''

through the joint terrorism task force, which includes the

U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Park Police, D.C. police, and

other federal and local agencies.

He suggested there was not a great deal for law enforcement

to do with the information because the FBI at that time did

not know who made the comments. ``That was a thread on a

message board that was not attributable to an individual

person,'' D'Antuono said Tuesday.

D'Antuono did not say what, if anything, the FBI or other

agencies did differently as a result of that information. Nor

did he explain why he told reporters on Friday that there had

been no such intelligence.

Steven Sund, who resigned as Capitol Police chief, said in

an interview Tuesday that he never received nor was made

aware of the FBI's field bulletin, insisting he and others

would have taken the warning seriously had it been shared.

``I did not have that information, nor was that information

taken into consideration in our security planning,'' Sund

said.

Since the riot, agents and prosecutors have been intent on

tracking down and arresting the most violent participants in

the mob, in part because there is already significant online

discussion of new potential clashes for Sunday and again on

Jan. 20, when President-elect Joe Biden is set to take the

oath of office.

Michael R. Sherwin, the acting U.S. attorney for D.C., said

there would be a strike force of prosecutors looking to file

charges of seditious conspiracy where the evidence merited

it.

The Jan. 5 FBI report notes that the information represents

the view of the FBI's Norfolk office, is not to be shared

outside law enforcement circles, that it is not ``finally

evaluated intelligence,'' and that agencies receiving it

``are requested not to take action based on this raw

reporting without prior coordination with the FBI.''

Multiple law enforcement officials have said privately in

recent days that the level of violence exhibited at the

Capitol has led to difficult discussions within the FBI and

other agencies about race, terrorism and whether

investigators failed to register the degree of danger because

the overwhelming majority of the participants at the rally

were White conservatives fiercely loyal to Trump.

``Individuals/Organizations named in this [situational

information report] have been identified as participating in

activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution,'' the document says. ``Their inclusion

here is not intended to associate the protected activity with

criminality or a threat to national security, or to infer

that such protected activity itself violates federal law.

``However,'' it continues, ``based on known intelligence

and/or specific historical observations, it is possible the

protected activity could invite a violent reaction towards

the subject individual or others in retaliation or with the

goal of stopping the protected activity from occurring in the

first instance. In the event no violent reaction occurs, FBI

policy and federal law dictates that no further record be

made of the protected activity.''

The document notes that one online comment advised, ``if

Antifa or BLM get violent, leave them dead in the street,''

while another said they need ``people on standby to provide

supplies, including water and medical, to the front lines.

The individual also discussed the need to evacuate

noncombatants and wounded to medical care.''

On Jan. 6, a large, angry crowd of people who had attended

a rally nearby marched to the Capitol, smashing windows and

breaking doors to get inside. One woman in the mob was shot

and killed by Capitol Police; officials said three other in

the crowd had medical emergencies and died. A Capitol Police

officer died after suffering injuries.

The FBI said in a statement that its ``standard practice is

to not comment on specific intelligence products,'' but added

that FBI field offices ``routinely share information with

their local law enforcement partners to assist in protecting

the communities they serve.''

For weeks leading up to the event, FBI officials discounted

any suggestion that the activities of Trump supporters upset

about the scheduled certification of Biden's election win

could be a security threat on a scale with the racial-justice

demonstrations that followed the police killing of George

Floyd in Minneapolis in May.

While the nation's capital is one of the most heavily

guarded cities on the planet, local and federal law

enforcement agencies sought to take a low-key approach to

last week's event, publicly and privately expressing concerns

that they did not want to repeat last year's ugly clashes

between protesters and police.

Some law enforcement officials took the view that

protesters who support Trump are generally known for over-

the-top rhetoric but not much violence, and therefore the

event did not pose a particularly serious risk, according to

people familiar with the security discussions leading up to

Jan. 6.

Even so, there were warning signs, though none as stark as

the one from the FBI's Norfolk office.

FBI agents had in the weeks before the Trump rally visited

suspected far-right extremists, hoping to glean whether they

had violent intentions, said a person familiar with the

matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the

law enforcement activity. It was not immediately clear who

was visited or if the FBI was specifically tracking anyone

who would later be charged criminally. These visits were

first reported Sunday by NBC News.

In addition, in the days leading up to the demonstrations,

some Capitol Hill staffers were told by supervisors to not

come in to work that day, if possible, because it seemed the

danger level would be higher than many previous protests,

according to a person familiar with the warning who spoke on

the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter. Capitol

Police did not take the kind of extra precautions, such as

frozen zones and hardened barriers, that are typically used

for major events near the Capitol.

Federal agents are on high alert as the inauguration nears,

with authorities bracing for possible violence not just in

Washington but also nationwide, officials said.

The FBI recently issued a different memo saying that

``armed protests'' were being planned ``at all 50 state

capitols'' and in D.C. in the run-up to the inauguration,

according to an official familiar with the matter, speaking

on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive law

enforcement matter.

The memo--first reported by ABC News and later confirmed by

The Post--is a raw intelligence product, compiling

information gathered by the bureau and several other

government agencies, the official familiar with the matter

said. Some of it is unverified, and the threat probably will

differ significantly from place to place, the official said.

But the information it highlights to law enforcement is

nonetheless troubling--including that there was data

suggesting people might storm government offices or stage an

uprising were Trump to be removed from office, the official

said.

In a statement, the FBI declined to comment specifically on

the memo about state capitols but said: ``Our efforts are

focused on identifying, investigating, and disrupting

individuals that are inciting violence and engaging in

criminal activity. As we do in normal course of business, we

are gathering information to identify any potential threats

and are sharing that information with our partners.

``The FBI respects The rights of individuals to peacefully

exercise their First Amendment rights,'' it said. ``Our focus

is not on peaceful protesters, but on those threatening their

safety and the safety of other citizens with violence and

destruction of property.''

Others are reporting a timeline that has the breach out of sync as well, but that highlights the importance. There is far too little that we know about this attack on our Capitol.

Here is what we do know. No one has defended this attack on our Capitol. On the contrary, we are missing--willfully missing, in my opinion--a moment of extreme unity in our Nation, just like what was willfully done earlier this year.

At a time of great political and partisan division, even seething anger, one thing all Americans seem to agree on is that these attacks were wrong. The President condemned them. He discouraged violence, not just on January 6 but on other days throughout the year as he talked about law and order and as he talked about something that we finally seem to agree on, that there is a clear distinction between the Constitution's First Amendment protection of the right to assemble peaceably and riots, criminal, unlawful riots.

There is a distinction between rioters and protesters. Frankly, it took us months to agree on that as a body in Congress, but the people of the United States of America agreed to it. They understood it.

I encourage my colleagues across the political spectrum, the Members of Congress gathered here together today and tomorrow, to stand united and move forward with the agreement our country had, that this was wrong.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 38 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 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

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

Mr. Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a closed rule, House Resolution 38, providing for consideration of House Resolution 21, calling on Vice President Michael R. Pence to convene and mobilize the principal officers of the executive departments of the Cabinet to activate section 4 of the 25th Amendment to declare President Donald J. Trump incapable of executing the duties of his office and to immediately exercise powers as acting President.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or a designee. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Nadler. The rule provides that the prohibition against engaging in personalities during debate, with respect to references to the President, shall not apply during consideration of House Resolution 21 or any special order of business relating to the impeachment of the President considered on January 13, 2021.

Finally, the rule authorizes and directs the Sergeant at Arms to impose a fine against a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner for the failure to wear a mask in contravention of the Speaker's announced policy on this subject for the duration of the pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule for House Resolution 21, a resolution calling for Vice President Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment and declare President Donald Trump incapable of executing the duties of his office. We take this action solemnly and with grave concern for the safety and security of our Nation and its people, even in the final days of this President's administration.

Last Wednesday, a lawless mob breached this Chamber with the most evil and destructive intent. They were here to take the law into their own hands, to disrupt Congress as it counted the electoral college votes, and to overturn the lawful election of Joseph Biden as our 46th President.

As violent invaders broke windows and rammed doors, they chanted that they wanted to hang the Vice President and kidnap the Speaker of the House, and they brought the tools to do it. They beat one police officer to death, tased others, and tried to shoot one with his own gun. Another officer will likely lose an eye. Scores of others

suffered head injuries when they were beaten with pipes. Blood was spilled on the marble floor just outside this room.

Members, staff, and reporters were forced to take cover under furniture and barricade themselves in rooms, clutching gas masks and fearing for their lives as the President's MAGA supporters chanted and raged nearby. Journalists were specifically targeted and beaten. Explosive devices were placed nearby to divert the police from protecting the Capitol.

This was not a peaceful protest. These were crimes against our country and the people who go to work every day on Capitol Hill. Just this afternoon, the FBI announced that it expects to charge hundreds of people with crimes ranging from simple trespass to conspiracy and sedition, to weapons offenses, to felony murder.

Crimes like this do not occur in a vacuum. They must be planned. They must be led.

The attack on the Capitol was incited by this administration. For months, they told their supporters that if they didn't win the election, the election was rigged. When the majority of American voters decided they had had enough of this chaos, they declared that the election had been stolen. The administration invited the President's most rabid supporters to come to D.C. on January 6 for a wild protest. Then the administration whipped them into a frenzy and sent the mob across town to attack the Capitol and disrupt the counting of electoral college votes. But it didn't end there.

The President reportedly watched with excitement as the news media began streaming images of the terror at the Capitol through electronic devices in America and around the world. The President tweeted that the Vice President had betrayed him. And even after the violence was apparent, the President and his lawyer placed calls to allies on Capitol Hill, trying to persuade them to prolong their objections to the counting of the electoral votes. What the administration didn't do for hours was to lift a finger to call off the mob or to rally support to defend the government, the historic monuments in the Capitol, the police, or especially the people under siege in the building. Members here in this Chamber know that, for hours, the President refused to return their calls begging for help.

Mr. Speaker, in the days since, the administration has continued to claim that the election was rigged. It has denied any responsibility for the riot, and praised the rioters, all while reports proliferate that the administration's supporters are planning more violence in the weeks ahead.

This is why this President remains a clear and present danger to the country, so long as he continues to serve. The reality is that we all-- even the most loyal political supporters--know that this President is unfit for office. Any other President with an ounce of character would have resigned after seeing the bloody consequences of the actions on Wednesday. Any other administration would have invoked the 25th Amendment long ago.

I don't care if a President incites a riot against Congress on his first day or the last day of his or her Presidency. Such an act is a crime against our government, much less against the people who are terrorized or killed in the attack. If a President can refuse to acknowledge the will of American voters, then incite a coup to stay in power without punishment, then our democracy is lost.

Mr. Speaker, that is why it is vital for Vice President Pence and the Cabinet to do the right thing--to invoke the 25th Amendment. Otherwise, this Congress must remove Donald Trump from office.

I have heard the calls for unity, and I agree that now is the time to come forward in unity, to defend our country, not to defend a man who has proven himself incompetent to occupy the office of the President for another day.

I am grateful to those Members of the Republican Party who agreed that the time has come to put loyalty to country above partisan considerations. And we welcome their support in taking whatever actions are necessary to end this chaos, to defend our government, and to protect the American people.

I also find the cries of partisanship by the President's remaining supporters to be unconvincing. The whole world watched in horror on January 6 as the administration encouraged a mob to attack the seat of our democracy to disrupt the election of Joseph R. Biden and then stood by as rioters sacked the Capitol.

Many civic leaders from both parties have condemned the President's actions and called for his removal. So, no, this is not partisan.

But I invite the President's supporters in Congress--no, I beg them-- to join the American people in holding this President accountable for the violence we experienced last week and to prevent further chaos in the days to come.

Before I conclude, I want to take a minute to give my deepest condolences to the families of the Capitol Police officers who died as a result of this attack. I want to thank the men and women of the Metropolitan and Capitol Police forces who valiantly defended both our democracy and the people who work on the Hill and wish a speedy recovery to the scores who were injured during the attack.

I also want to thank our tireless facilities and custodial staff for putting the building back together after terrorists violated it and the members of the press corps who have been so abused by this administration and were specifically targeted by this mob but continued documenting the attack so Americans could see what was really happening.

Lastly, I want to thank our staff across the Capitol for their bravery and dedication to public service. I want to thank them for the work they do every day but especially for their heroism in returning to the floor last Wednesday night to help us continue the electoral college vote count, and I thank them for being back here with us today. We are indebted to them for their service to our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, we, of course, share the concern of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle that an incident like this never happens again. That is why we are urging the Vice President to invoke the 25th Amendment, because of the clear and present danger of continued violence under this administration.

While I believe there will be a time to talk about bipartisan efforts to have an investigation through this House, this is not the moment for it.

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

I would just suggest that sedition is inherently divisive, and it is difficult to unify before there has been accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi).

Just to clarify, this provision about suspending the rule about personalities is so that we can have a full and frank discussion of just why the request is being made to invoke the 25th Amendment and just why this President should be impeached. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to describe the high crimes and misdemeanors and other misconduct which forms the basis of those requests if that rule were not suspended.

As I mentioned in my opening, we don't view this as a partisan resolution. We have Members from all sides of the political spectrum now calling for the removal of this President. Members might want to check their news feed to see the growing list of civic, business, and religious leaders from across the country who have said: Enough is enough. This President is a clear and present danger.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I would inquire if the gentleman has any more speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, after the chaos and potentially--well, definitely criminal behavior that we saw here last week, there is no trust left between this administration and the majority of the American people.

The stability of our executive branch is a foundational piece of our democracy. This administration has failed or refused to uphold the most basic duties of protecting our Constitution and our national security or of respecting the coequal branches of our government.

Wednesday's bloody attack proved that this administration is an imminent and continuing danger to our country even in the waning days of this Presidency.

I am heartbroken for our country but more determined than ever to fight to preserve our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I call on Vice President Pence and the Cabinet to do the right thing. I call upon our colleagues to do the right thing: to put our country before the interests of any one man and to join us in ending this failed Presidency.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Morelle for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of two pieces of legislation. The first, H.R. 447, is the National Apprenticeship Act. The bill seeks to improve and streamline access to apprenticeships. These goals are broadly supported by Members on both sides of the political aisle, in the House and in the Senate.

We considered an almost identical bill in the 116th Congress, which was the previous Congress. At that time, Republicans expressed a desire to work together to achieve the goal of modernizing the National Apprenticeship Program. Since then, the Democrats have pushed through their bill that did nothing to streamline the program, nothing for flexibility for employer-driven apprenticeships.

The bill before us today is largely the same. Rather than work with Republicans in a meaningful way, the majority remains committed to codifying decades of rigid regulations and red tape. The Committee on Education and Labor did not even have a hearing or a markup on this bill before it came before the Committee on Rules, essentially shutting out committee Republicans from the negotiation process entirely--many of whom were new members on the Committee on Education and Labor and did not participate in the discussion in the last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, between 2009 and 2019, America saw a 128 percent growth in apprenticeships. In September of 2020, the Department of Labor reported that 94 percent of all apprentices who completed their apprenticeship received an average annual salary of $70,000. Today's registered apprenticeship system is an important tool for job seekers and employers.

It does have some flaws, however. In 2019, 252,000 individuals began an apprenticeship. Good for them, but only 81,000 graduated.

This bill would make the apprenticeship system the only registered and Department of Labor-supported apprenticeship option, shutting the door on opportunities for those who participate in nonregistered earn- and-learn programs. While so many in the Nation have lost work due to the economic toll of the pandemic, now is not the time to make it harder to find adequate training by reducing an individual's apprenticeship options.

Mr. Speaker, the National Apprenticeship Act would make this system even less receptive to innovation and create prescriptive requirements on apprenticeships. It also makes it difficult for small and medium- sized businesses to participate, as they do not always have the resources to navigate the lengthy and Byzantine Department of Labor registration process.

America desperately needs more lab technicians. We need more medical assistants. We need more pharmacy technicians. In the middle of a global public health crisis, we cannot afford to stymie motivated future employees.

Republicans agree that this 80-year-old system can and must be improved, but the solutions must be targeted and effective. The majority claims that the increased funding in this legislation will create 1 million apprenticeships. While it is true that the legislation provides significantly more funding, unfortunately, more money alone doesn't guarantee better outcomes if the underlying systems don't work in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, the second part of this rule provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 11, establishing a budget for fiscal year 2021, and providing the budget reconciliation instructions for fiscal years 2021 through 2030. Budget reconciliation is a fast-track, budgetary tool used to implement policy changes into law. This procedure requires only 51 votes in the Senate--not the normal 60 votes to break the filibuster, but only 51 votes in the Senate--which, unfortunately, can turn this into a partisan exercise, which is what happened here today.

President Biden has proposed a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, but under the reconciliation instructions included in the resolution, the deficit would increase to between $2 trillion and $3 trillion.

Look, on the west front of the Capitol 2 weeks ago, the President called for unity--his first move. And, today, we see the Democrats employing a partisan process to jam through their wish list of policy priorities.

The Budget Committee has not yet even organized as a committee, but the Committee on Rules adopted a rule to consider budget reconciliation without any prior hearings or markups. This will be the first time since 1974 that Congress has bypassed the Budget Committee and gone straight to the floor with a budget resolution.

In addition, the Democrats did not pass a budget resolution at all for fiscal year 2021. So the budget resolution before us today is exactly 290 days late.

Barely 1 month ago, Congress passed--and President Trump signed into law--a $900 billion coronavirus relief package. Combined with previous relief packages--and there were many--there remains $1 trillion in unspent funding. To my knowledge, there have been very few, if any, authorizing and oversight hearings to account for what funds are needed and how these funds have been spent and ensure they are being used in a way that best benefits the American people.

With all of that as background, then you have to ask yourself: ``Why is it now so urgent to pass another $2 trillion bill?''

Well, the answer lies in the progressive, partisan policy priorities that the majority wants to push through, including raising taxes, increasing the minimum wage, implementing the Green New Deal, providing a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, lowering Medicare eligibility, providing universal basic income, and canceling student loan debt.

But these policies do not address the immediate needs of Americans who are trying to survive the pandemic. Now is not the time to push partisan priorities.

Look, Republicans do stand ready to work with Democrats to provide the needed resources for the American people. Yesterday's visit by 10 Republican senators to the Oval Office and the time that President Biden spent with them certainly should be indicative to people that there is a willingness to work together to solve the problems of the country, but we also are obligated to ensure that the proposals are thoroughly vetted and will be implemented in a way that actually helps rather than further harms our recovery.

Mr. Speaker, I would add that Mr. Morelle referenced some of the other things contained in the rule. I think it is important that Members understand the threats under which we operate. As such, I, frankly, do not understand why we have not been provided a classified briefing by the Speaker of the House as to what the threats were prior to January 6 and what the threats are going forward. Suffice it to say, that the people's House--the House of Representatives--now is completely on lockdown. There are no people in the people's House other than the Representatives, and that is not the way it was intended.

I think we are owed an explanation for what the level of threat is so that we may adequately prepare ourselves in our personal lives, as well as our work in our districts. I would call upon the Speaker to make such a bipartisan Member briefing available as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my new favorite ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra), who is a new, freshman member of the Republican Conference, to give what I believe is his first speech on the House floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to encourage local educational agencies to resume in- person instruction in elementary and secondary schools.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), who is here to explain the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa.

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

Mr. Speaker, Republicans agree that apprenticeships are vital to American livelihoods and our national interests. We agree that reforms to these programs are necessary and prudent. It is time to update the apprenticeship program to better reflect the needs of employers and the needs of our Nation. Republicans stand ready to negotiate. Now is the time to give Americans opportunities to succeed, and I sincerely hope that we will do just that.

To recover from this pandemic, we must also not push through policies that do not address the immediate needs of the American people. The budget reconciliation resolution provided for in this rule will drastically increase the deficit and seek to implement nonessential partisan policy priorities without first conducting the necessary authorization hearings and conducting the necessary oversight to ensure that current funding is spent effectively and efficiently.

After the multiple calls for unity, it is disappointing that the first move that we are seeing from the majority in this Congress is to employ this partisan procedural process. I do hope they reconsider and come back to the negotiating table through regular order.

Let me just also ask again that the Speaker allow Members to be briefed by the appropriate law enforcement agencies as to exactly what the threats are here in the Nation's Capital. I think we would all benefit from that not just in our work here in Washington, D.C., but also when we work with constituents and staff back in our districts.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the rule, and a ``no'' vote on the underlying measures.

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

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