H.Res. 504

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress of the United States

Washington, DC, June 29, 2021.

Hon. Zoe Lofgren,

Chairperson,

Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.

Hon. Amy Klobuchar,

Ranking Member,

Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.

Chairperson Lofgren and Ranking Member Klobuchar: We write

today to encourage the Joint Committee of Congress on the

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

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

statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection. Since 2015,

North Carolina has worked to replace one of its current

statues, which depicts Charles Brantley Aycock, an individual

associated with white supremacy, with one of the late

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

Carolina's diligent efforts in coordination with the

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

the Library, the statue of Aycock remains.

On October 2, 2015, the North Carolina General Assembly

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

Joint Committee on the Library of Congress to Approve the

Replacement of the Statue of Charles Brantley Aycock in

National Statuary Hall with the Statue of the Reverend

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

passed the North Carolina House with bipartisan support and

passed the North Carolina Senate unanimously.

In February 2018, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper and

Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest sent letters to the AOC in

support of the General Assembly's request.

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

Hall Selection Committee unanimously approved the design of

the Rev. Graham statue.

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

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

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

Congress, JCL's delayed organization continues to hinder

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

statue from the Capitol.

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

Carolina by moving immediately to complete its work on North

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

order to ensure the State's wishes are finally realized

without further delay.

Sincerely,

Patrick McHenry.

Virginia Foxx.

Richard Hudson.

Ted Budd.

David Rouzer.

Dan Bishop.

Gregory F. Murphy, M.D.

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

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

Architect of the Capitol

January 2014.

Procedure and Guidelines for Replacement of Statues in the National

Statuary Hall Collection

The creation of the National Statuary Hall Collection was

authorized by the United States Congress in 1864 to allow

each State to provide two statues of notable citizens for

display in the United States Capitol. The Joint Committee on

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

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

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

of the statues.

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

may request the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress to

approve the replacement of a statue the State has provided

for display in Statuary Hall'' under two conditions:

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

by the legislature of the State and the request has been

approved by the Governor of the State, and

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

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

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

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

Steps in the Procedure

1. Responsibilities of the State. The State legislature

enacts a resolution that identifies the statue to be

replaced, names the individual to be newly commemorated and

cites his or her qualifications, selects a committee or

commission to represent the State in selecting the sculptor,

and directs the method of obtaining the necessary funds to

carry the resolution into effect. Expenditures for which the

State is responsible include the cost of paying the sculptor

for designing and carving or casting the statue; designing

and fabricating the pedestal; transporting the statue and

pedestal to the United States Capitol; removing and

transporting the replaced statue; temporarily erecting the

new statue on its pedestal in the location approved for the

unveiling ceremony; certain

expenses related to the unveiling ceremony; and any other

expenses that the State commission may find it necessary to

incur.

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

official, typically the governor, shall submit to the

Architect of the Capitol a written request to provide a new

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

replaced statue will be displayed after it is transferred,

and a copy of the applicable enacted State legislation

authorizing the replacement. The Architect of the Capitol

will review the request for completeness and will forward it

to the Joint Committee on the Library.

3. Joint Committee on the Library Action. The Joint

Committee on the Library will approve or deny the request.

4. Agreement Regarding Replacement. If the request is

approved by the Joint Committee on the Library, the Architect

of the Capitol will formalize an agreement with the State to

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

commitment to follow the guidelines for the design and

fabrication of statues (see below) and to take responsibility

for any cost related to the design, construction,

transportation, and placement of the new statue; the removal

and transportation of the statue being replaced; and any

unveiling ceremony. The agreement is between the Architect of

the Capitol and the State. If the State authorizes a

commission, foundation, or other entity to act upon its

behalf in subsequent parts of the process, the governor must

so notify the Architect of the Capitol in writing.

5. Approval of Maquette. The State or its representative

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

final approval by the Joint Committee on the Library,

photographs of the maquette from all four sides and the

proposed dimensions of the completed statue.

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

Including Proposed Inscription. The State shall submit to the

Architect of the Capitol, for review and final approval by

the Joint Committee on the Library, photographs of the model

from all four sides, dimensions, engineering drawings of the

pedestal, the anticipated weight of the completed statue and

pedestal, and the text of any proposed inscriptions. Any

structural, safety, and design concerns will need to be

addressed before final approval.

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

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

the Architect of the Capitol, for review and final approval

by the Joint Committee on the Library, photographs of the

completed statue and pedestal from all four sides,

dimensions, the final weight, and the text of any

inscriptions.

8. Ceremony and Program. The holding of an unveiling

ceremony is optional. Permission to use the Rotunda or

Emancipation Hall must be granted by concurrent resolution of

the Congress, and legislation by the Congress is required to

authorize printing of the proceedings at government expense.

The State may contact its delegation in Congress for

assistance and for introduction of the required legislation.

Although no law requires the Congress to accept statues by

formal resolution, it is recommended that acceptance of the

statue by the Congress be included in the legislation

introduced for the use the Rotunda or Emancipation Hall for

the unveiling ceremony.

The State must arrange the program for the ceremony with

the Speaker of the House, who will ensure that congressional

participation is bipartisan and bicameral and that the

program concludes in a reasonable time. The Architect of the

Capitol provides support for any unveiling ceremony.

9. Statue Removal/Installation and Ownership Transfer. The

State must arrange for a rigger approved by the Architect of

the Capitol to remove the replaced statue and install the

replacement statue in the location of its unveiling. This

work must be coordinated with the Architect of the Capitol.

The replaced statue must be removed shortly before the new

statue is brought into the Capitol. Before the replaced

statue is removed, a document transferring ownership of that

statue from the federal government to the State will be

signed by the designated State official.

10. Permanent Location. The permanent location for the

replacement statue will be approved by the Joint Committee on

the Library. The National Statuary Hall collection is located

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

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

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

Capitol Visitor Center.

The Architect of the Capitol will make recommendations for

placement of the new statue with the least possible

disruption to previously placed statues while maintaining a

harmonious arrangement. To assist in developing this

recommendation, the agency's structural engineer will

determine whether the floor in any proposed location can

safely support the weight of the statue. If the replacement

statue is suitable in weight and dimensions, it will normally

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

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

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

Arts as requested, relocate statues within the Capitol.

If necessary, after the statue has been unveiled, the

Architect of the Capitol will be responsible for moving it to

the permanent location approved by the Joint Committee on the

Library.

Guidelines for Replacement Statues

The guidelines below are provided for reference only; they

may be modified in particular cases by the Joint Committee on

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

collection are available at the Architect of the Capitol

website (www.aoc.gov).

Subject. The subject of the statue must be a deceased

person who was a citizen of the United States and is

illustrious for historic renown or for distinguished civic or

military services. Statues may represent only one individual

(ruling adopted by the Joint Committee on the Library at

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

length.

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

Replacement statues made of the same material as the replaced

statue are preferred. Materials from domestic sources,

including, as applicable, sources in the territories and

possessions of the United States, are preferred.

Pedestal. To reduce weight, the Architect of the Capitol

recommends that the pedestal be made of a hollow steel frame

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

recommended that the pedestal be designed and constructed

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

access to attachment bolts. The pedestal design,

dimensions, and weight must be submitted to the Architect

of the Capitol for review.

Inscriptions. Inscriptions on the pedestal should include

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

preferred option is that inscriptions be carved.

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

It is traditional and preferred that inscriptions be simple

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

proposed inscription should be submitted for review and

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

pedestal design.

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

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

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

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

combined weight of a bronze statue and its pedestal should

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

should weigh no more than 10,000 pounds.

Patina and Coating. For bronze statues, the selected patina

and coating must be easily maintained and repaired. Formulas

for the patinating and coating materials must be provided to

the Architect of the Capitol for use during future

maintenance.

Other Considerations. The statue and pedestal should not be

a potential source of safety hazards. They should not have

any protruding or sharp element that could cause harm or be

an obstacle for persons in the building.

Relevant Legislation

The law creating National Statuary Hall is the act of July

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

established that each State had the right to donate

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

for each State, of deceased persons who have been citizens

thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or for

distinguished civic or military services . . . .''

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

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

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

the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress to approve the

replacement of a statue the State has provided for display in

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

U.S.C. Sec. 2132.

Supervision and direction of the collection are assigned to

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

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

With the approval of the congressional Joint Committee on

the Library, the Architect of the Capitol is responsible for

the reception and location of the statues in this collection,

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

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

Excerpt From Public Law 106-554

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

on the Library of Congress to approve the replacement of a

statue the State has provided for display in Statuary Hall in

the Capitol of the United States under section 1814 of the

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

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

if--

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

by the legislature of the State and the request has been

approved by the Governor of the State, and

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capitol shall enter into an agreement with the State to carry

out the replacement in accordance with the request and any

conditions the Joint Committee may require for its approval.

Such agreement shall provide that--

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

and restrictions as apply to any statue provided by a State

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

and

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

replacement, including costs in connection with the design,

construction, transportation, and placement of the new

statue, the removal and transportation of the statue being

replaced, and any unveiling ceremony.

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

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

Capitol of the United States.

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

the Library, ownership of any statue replaced under this

section shall be transferred to the State.

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

States as part of a transfer of ownership under paragraph

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

unless such display is specifically authorized by Federal

law.

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

Joint Committee on the Library and with the advice of the

Commission of Fine Arts as requested, is authorized and

directed to relocate within the United States Capitol any of

the statues received from the States under section 1814 of

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

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

location, and relocation of the statues received hereafter

from the States under such section.

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

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, June 29, 2021.

Submission for the Record

Timeline of Joint Committee of Congress on the Library Organization for

the 117th Congress of the United States

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

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

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

on the Library and the Joint Committee on Printing.

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

resolution providing for members on the part of the Senate of

the Joint Committee on Printing and the Joint Committee of

Congress on the Library.

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

gaveled into session around 4:00 p.m.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, June 17, 2021.

Hon. Zoe Lofgren,

Chairperson, Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC.

Chairperson Lofgren: More than six months have passed since

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

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

will officially organize next week. We are looking forward to

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

pressing issues before the Joint Committee demanding our

immediate attention.

We encourage the following items be considered as some of

the JCL's first orders of business:

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

Committee's delayed organization has directly affected the

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

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

remains closed awaiting permission from the JCL to re-welcome

visitors. We must take up this matter of business

immediately, as the USBG's reopening plans and executive

leadership team have informed oversight stakeholders of the

campus' readiness for safe and immediate reopening.

Consideration of the request by the State of North

Carolina. The State of North Carolina is anxiously awaiting

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

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

Hall Collection. Already years into this process, the request

is awaiting JCL approval and the Architect of the Capitol is

ready to partner with us to move the process along.

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

work, while upholding the long tradition of bipartisanship

and bicameralism. As the incoming Chairperson, we encourage

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

organizing meeting so that we can begin to address these

pressing issues.

Sincerely,

Rodney Davis,

Ranking Member,

Committee on House Administration.

Barry Loudermilk,

Member,

Committee on House Administration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 504 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 504, providing for consideration of H.R. 2662, the IG Independence and Empowerment Act, under a structured 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, makes in order six amendments, provides for en bloc authority, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3005 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 House Administration and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 3684, the INVEST in America Act. The rule provides 90 minutes of general debate with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It combines the Rules Committee prints for the surface transportation and clean water provisions of the bill, self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman DeFazio, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule additionally provides for consideration of H. Res. 503, Establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, 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 Rules.

Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested rollcall votes on suspension bills considered on June 28 or 29, and this authority lasts through July 1.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider a rule for four measures that address some of the most fundamental issues upon which Congress may act as we continually strive to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for all of us and our descendants.

In passing these three bills and in creating a select committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the U.S. House of Representatives is putting forward real solutions to repair our physical infrastructure, protect our systems of accountability, acknowledge our relationship with the past, and establish a shared understanding and plan to address the deep wounds inflicted upon this building, those who serve and protect here, our government, and our democratic Republic by the attack on the Capitol on January 6.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the Members and committees that worked on the bills we consider here today, in particular, the Herculean efforts by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Oversight and Reform Committee, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Majority Whip Clyburn, and Majority Leader Hoyer for their leadership to remove symbols of hate from the Capitol Building.

Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that our Nation's infrastructure is in a shameful state of disrepair. For decades, we have heard a lot of talk about infrastructure while efforts to build and maintain the networks and systems on which we all rely have been grossly underfunded. Whether it be roads and bridges or ports and rail lines, year after year, we fail to muster the political will to properly fund infrastructure, and the consequences are increasingly dire.

My district, Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional District, is home to Philadelphia's airport, port, rail yard, and, as a key part of the Northeast Corridor, dozens of miles of interstate highways and passenger rail lines, as well as regional commuter and light rail lines that link Philadelphia and its suburbs.

True to its position, PA-05 sits as a transportation keystone to a vast interstate and international economic network. The problems facing my district's transportation infrastructure are not that different from those of other regions. Our infrastructure is

aging and, in some cases, beyond usable lifespan. It is heavily used, and State and local authorities don't have enough money to meet maintenance needs, much less to make investments in modernization, expansion, or other improvements. Anyone who travels our roadways knows that axle-bending, tire-rattling potholes are the norm.

Nationwide, the situation is no better: aging and inadequate electrical grids, shamefully deficient water infrastructure, 47,000 structurally deficient bridges. You can go to any congressional district and find a litany of projects in desperate need of funding.

We have heard lip service about infrastructure week for so long that it has become a sick national joke. We must act now.

While the U.S. has sat on its hands, our allies and adversaries around the world have forged ahead with advancements in transportation networks, from high-speed rail that puts ours to shame to building up broadband and 5G networks.

China spends 8 percent of its GDP on infrastructure. Our European partners spend 5 percent of their GDP on infrastructure. Here in the United States, we spend a meager 2.4 percent.

We are falling behind the rest of the world and, in doing so, failing to promote the general welfare of our citizens.

That is why I am proud to support this rule to pass the INVEST in America Act. This bill will provide over $715 billion over the next 5 years to repair and improve our Nation's infrastructure. It will create good-paying jobs and lay the foundation for robust economic growth in the 21st century.

It will make record investments in roads, transit, and rails, allowing State departments of transportation to address maintenance backlogs and make forward-thinking investments in road safety, climate mitigation and resiliency, and low-income and underserved communities in our cities, suburbs, and rural areas.

It will help build out our Nation's EV infrastructure and help Americans shift to the next generation of clean energy vehicles. It will assist transit agencies in expanding service areas and adopting zero-emission vehicles, and it gives States funding to help prepare for the impacts of climate change and extreme weather.

This package also includes over $160 billion for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Right now in the United States, there are millions of Americans who don't have access to clean drinking water or who aren't connected to a wastewater network. There is no excuse for that. The water provisions include much-needed funding to fully replace lead pipes throughout the country and strengthen water standards so the EPA can better address PFAS contamination.

These issues are vitally important to my district and others in southeastern Pennsylvania and across the country. I commend the Energy and Commerce Committee for crafting this comprehensive water infrastructure package.

Lastly, I want to state my strong support for the Member designated projects included in the INVEST in America Act. I thank Chairman DeFazio for giving my colleagues and I, on both sides of the aisle, the opportunity to secure dedicated funding for important local projects in our districts and for instituting strong safeguards in this funding to prevent fraud and abuse.

The Member designated projects process allowed us to work with our State and local transit agencies and local governments to highlight high-impact transportation projects in need of funding.

I am proud that $20 million for seven great projects in my district have been included in this bill, including redesign of dangerous rail crossings and upgrades to commuter stations, and perhaps most significantly, this bill includes a project I submitted with my Pennsylvania colleague (Mr. Evans), to redesign Cobbs Creek Parkway, one of the most dangerous corridors in our region and the site of hundreds of crashes and multiple fatalities year after year. The redesign will make Cobbs Creek Parkway safer for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists.

Voting against this bill to invest in America is voting against jobs; it is voting against economic growth; it is voting against safety; and it is voting against making sure people have clean drinking water. Now is the time to tackle these issues, and so I urge all my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, also included in this bill is the IG Independence and Empowerment Act, a bill from the House Oversight and Reform Committee to overhaul and reform the legal powers and protections of our inspectors general.

Inspectors general are a vital part of our Federal institutions, ensuring that taxpayers and officials have an independent source of oversight and information to ensure government employees, from the interns to the President, are following the law and properly administering their duties.

For our government to function and be free of waste and corruption, to protect against fraud and impropriety, we need inspectors general who are empowered to act and who are protected from arbitrary, capricious, or personal attacks. But we saw, over the past 4 years, that there were critical flaws in the law that govern our inspector general programs. We saw that it was possible for an administration to undermine the independence of the inspectors general through unprecedented firings and denial of access to information.

A little over a year ago, the former President fired five Cabinet inspectors general over 6 weeks, with the announcements often coming on Friday nights when the Nation's attention was elsewhere.

The inspector general for Health and Human Services was fired for reporting accurately on the Nation's dire shortage of lifesaving PPE during the beginning of the pandemic. The State Department inspector general was fired for investigating then-Secretary Pompeo's use of government staff to run personal errands. And the Department of Transportation inspector general was fired for investigating suspicious grant awards to Kentucky, the State represented by the former Secretary's husband and the then-Senate majority leader. In other words, these inspectors general were fired for doing their jobs.

The IG Independence and Empowerment Act will enact needed reforms to protect IGs from political firings, give them increased powers and resources to investigate waste and corruption, and increase accountability and transparency for the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. I strongly support the IG Independence and Empowerment Act and call on my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, the last bill in today's rule is long overdue. The bill would replace the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber in the Capitol with a bust of Thurgood Marshall and would remove the statues of individuals who voluntarily served in the Confederate States of America from display in the Capitol.

In Philadelphia, we have a street named after Chief Justice Taney and we have a Little League World Series Champion baseball team named after that street.

In 2020, following conversations about race and inclusiveness in America, the Taney Dragons Little League team decided to rename itself the Philadelphia Dragons saying that they cannot ignore the very real feelings that the name ``Taney'' engenders among members of our community, and that the new name will be inclusive, nondivisive, and also speak to our league's geography.

I say we follow the lead of our children on this issue. If they can do it, so can we. As we seek to form that more perfect Union and secure the blessings of liberty for all, we cannot accept the presence in this Capitol Building of Confederate icons, including the bust of the author of the Dred Scott decision or those who fought to protect slavery and wage war against the United States. Symbols of the Confederacy deserve to be in textbooks and museums, not venerated in the Capitol.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the creation of a select committee to investigate the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol Building where we stand. I am, and I think most of the public is, disappointed that the Senate failed to join in the establishment of a bipartisan commission to establish once and for all the facts about what happened on that day.

We had a bipartisan bill. Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Katko of Homeland Security, through good-faith negotiations, were able to craft bipartisan legislation to create a commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection. Our Republican colleagues got everything they wanted in that bill, and yet, their leadership withdrew its support at the last moment and couldn't take yes for an answer.

Since our colleagues refused to approve a bipartisan commission, the House must move ahead with an investigation of the January 6 events and a select committee is our final avenue. We must investigate the causes and events that led to that attack. It is my sincere hope that the committee can dive into the facts and produce a cohesive narrative around January 6 and the events that preceded it and make recommendations that will prevent such horrors from ever being repeated again.

The January 6 attack on our Capitol was a crime, a crime against our government and a crime against the men and women who serve here, whether it was elected officials, congressional staff, or law enforcement. Period. It was an ugly, violent crime and crimes need to be investigated. Thousands participated and over 800 illegally entered the building.

Roughly 500 so far have been criminally charged by law enforcement. Some have pled guilty. But the fact-finding is not yet done. We need to know how organized they were and what their level of coordination was.

Despite the claims of some in this Chamber, we now know that many of these rioters were armed, which means that every single one of us and all of our staffs were in very real danger. Some of the rioters came to abduct the Vice President and the Speaker of the House and put them on trial. Some planned to take this building over and hold it until January 20 in an attempt to stave off President Biden's inauguration. Some just wanted to destroy things, and they did.

That, too, the intention of the rioters, needs to be probed. Some think Donald Trump incited this riot; some think he did not. New and wild claims have surfaced about who instigated the violence. Let's investigate that, too. Let's investigate everything connected to this horrible event honestly, unflinchingly, objectively, and without passion or prejudice, but let us not leave this crime unexamined.

If we are to come together as a Nation to unite behind our shared constitutional values, to ensure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of democracy and liberty, we must do so from a shared understanding of reality.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that every member of this Chamber can find it in themselves to vote for this rule when it is considered on the floor. Our country cannot afford to wait longer on infrastructure. If we continue with business as usual, our infrastructure deficit will continue to grow. Our roads and bridges will continue to deteriorate, and our national economy will be less vibrant and competitive as a result.

We need to pass the INVEST in America Act. Full stop. We also need to pass the IG Independence and Empowerment Act, and we need to remove racist icons from the Capitol. These repairs and reforms cannot wait, and so I hope that Congress can find the political will to expeditiously pass the bills considered under the rule today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is really straightforward. It increases money for surface transportation. It focuses on hard infrastructure. We need to fix the basics and then we can improve and expand them. This bill does include money specifically directed to our rural areas, and the crack about urban yuppies is kind of crazy.

We know that in Pennsylvania, which both the gentleman and I represent, we know that we have businesses in western Pennsylvania that are losing money because of the state of our roadways. If you build a turbine in western Pennsylvania, in order to get it to the port in eastern Pennsylvania right now, those companies have to take an 800- mile detour because our roadways cannot support that turbine. So it is impacting their businesses.

It is increasing energy costs. It is wasting time. But these kinds of things affect businesses across our entire Commonwealth and across our entire country. So these are much-needed, overdue by decades, bipartisan neglect. This bill addresses some of those issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Pennsylvania have further speakers?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I think I have one more speaker.

I am finding the argument a little bit hard to follow for my colleagues across the aisle because, as I understand it, it was a bad thing to shut down businesses in the U.S. to protect people when there was a virus rampant here. But we have to shut down the border because there is a virus rampant here. It is just a little hard to follow the logic sometimes.

If the gentleman is prepared to close, then I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the lively debate today. I understand that there are some who have concerns with the rule and its underlying legislation, but these bills are vitally important to our country, and I am confident they would greatly benefit all of us.

We should be able to support robust infrastructure spending that meets our Nation's current needs. We should all support a vigorous corps of inspectors general who can weed out fraud, waste, and corruption in the Federal Government. We should all support removing symbols of hate from the Capitol. These should be easy bills for us all to get behind.

Lastly, I strongly support the creation of a select committee to investigate the January 6 insurrection and debunk the absurd theories and falsehoods that have infected our collective understanding of that day. While some of our colleagues may continue their denial, those of us in this Chamber who are committed to transparency and accountability and the well-being of the Nation can no longer afford to be held back by the sensitivities of those who put their fealty to the former President over their duty or obligation to the country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 504

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 9 Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 471) to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human

Services from lessening the stringency of, and to prohibit

the Secretary of Homeland Security from ceasing or lessening

implementation of, the COVID-19 border health provisions

through the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, and for other

purposes. All points of order against consideration of the

bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one

motion to recommit.

Sec. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 471.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 504, I call up the bill (H.R. 2662) to amend the Inspector General Act of 1978, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on H.R. 2662.

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

I rise today to urge strong, bipartisan support for my bill, H.R. 2662, the IG Independence and Empowerment Act.

The work of inspectors general, who conduct independent oversight of Federal agencies, continues to be a remarkable investment for American taxpayers. For every dollar we spend on IGs, we get $17 back. And this return could be even higher if we gave IGs additional tools, which is exactly what this bill would do.

The IG Independence and Empowerment Act is a package of critical reforms to protect IGs from political retaliation and obstruction. I want to thank Leader Hoyer for his support and work on this bill, as well as all the other cosponsors of the legislation.

The IG Independence and Empowerment Act also has the support of 14 good government groups. They wrote that the reforms in this legislation ``have been crafted to address problems with inspector general independence and authority long raised by Congress, civil society, and our inspectors general. We strongly urge Congress to pass this legislation to empower our independent watchdogs to serve the public even more effectively.''

This bill would enhance the independence of IGs in several ways. Most importantly, it would protect IGs from being fired simply for doing their jobs. The bill would only allow an IG to be removed for a documented cause, based on a defined list of nonpartisan reasons, such as a knowing violation of

the law, abuse of authority, or gross mismanagement.

These removal protections come from a bill I introduced last year, after the previous administration bullied, sidelined, and retaliated against multiple IGs.

Last April and May, in six short weeks, President Trump fired or sidelined four IGs and acting IGs who were simply doing their jobs.

On April 3, intelligence community IG Michael Atkinson was fired after he provided a whistleblower complaint to Congress about President Trump's now infamous call with Ukrainian President, part of the conduct for which he was impeached by this body.

On April 7, President Trump removed Glenn Fine as Acting Defense Department IG, which blocked IG Fine from serving as chair of the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, a committee I helped create in the CARES Act to oversee trillions of dollars in Federal spending in response to the coronavirus pandemic. IG Fine was simply doing his job.

On May 15, President Trump removed Mitch Behm as the Acting Transportation Department IG and replaced him with an agency insider. Mr. Behm was investigating Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao at the time.

And, finally, that same day, President Trump fired State Department IG Steve Linick, who, at the time, was investigating Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for abuse of power and misuse of resources, and replaced him with a political crony.

All four of these IGs were just following the law and the facts, yet they faced blatant retaliation. This is just plain wrong.

President Trump's actions struck at the heart of why we have IGs, to provide independent oversight and a check on executive branch waste, fraud, and abuse.

No President should be allowed to retaliate against an IG for simply doing their jobs, and the IG Independence and Empowerment Act would ensure that IGs are protected from this kind of retaliation.

In a letter to congressional leadership after the IG firings by Mr. Trump, nine former IGs wrote and said: ``Forcing inspectors general to choose between doing their jobs with integrity and keeping their positions is not an acceptable model of governance and oversight. We therefore urge you to pass for-cause removal protections for all IGs.''

In addition, the IG Independence and Empowerment Act would ensure temporary, acting IGs are independent and qualified by requiring the acting IG to be the deputy IG in the same office, or another senior official from the IG community if there is no deputy. This would protect against the appointment of acting IGs with conflicts of interest or who are acting as political appointees.

The IG Independence and Empowerment Act would further bolster IG independence by requiring notification to Congress before an IG is pushed aside and placed on non-duty status so that we in Congress can support the independence of IGs.

The bill would also empower IGs by granting them the authority to subpoena nongovernment witnesses to provide testimony. In many investigations, testimony from nongovernment witnesses is essential. So providing IGs with this authority is often the only way to root out fraud or other wrongdoings.

In 2016, our former colleague, Mark Meadows, supported a similar provision and highlighted that bill's procedural safeguards, which are essentially the same in the bill we are considering today.

He stated: ``This bill provides the expanded authority that the IGs have asked for, but with safeguards in place to make sure that they protect against the possibility that an IG's investigation would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation, or do other harm.''

The IG Independence and Empowerment Act would also close a loophole that prevents the Department of Justice IG from initiating investigations into professional misconduct by DOJ attorneys.

This bill balances enhanced authorities and independence with new accountability and transparency measures for IGs.

For example, the bill contains the bipartisan Integrity Committee Transparency Act, which would require greater transparency from the CIGIE Integrity Committee, the body Congress set up to investigate IGs.

Supporting IG independence has long been a bipartisan issue. Congress must act now to protect and empower IGs so that they can perform the duties Congress has entrusted to them without being retaliated against.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the IG Independence and Empowerment Act and continue the bipartisan tradition of protecting and strengthening IGs.

To my Republican colleagues who may say these efforts are about attacking President Trump, I would respond with this: Joe Biden is the President now.

I am supporting good governments reforms under a Democratic administration because I believe in accountability no matter who the President is and what party they come from.

We are talking about the future. This is about safeguarding taxpayers' money and protecting the integrity of our government.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support these critical reforms as well.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader of the House, an important leader on this legislation, and a steadfast leader on this and on so many issues before this body.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez), the vice chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter), the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Government Operations of the Oversight Committee.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her amendment, her hard work on this bill, and her leadership on the subcommittee and committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman such time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to recognize the hard work of the chairman of the subcommittee. He authored two proposals that were included in the bill and was a major leader on it. I thank Mr. Connolly.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Oversight Committee and a member of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis of the Oversight Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my dear friend and colleague, for having great enthusiasm for oversight and combating waste, fraud, and abuse. I would respectfully offer to him that the best way to conduct that is to give the power to the IGs to conduct legitimate investigations. What we have seen is that when there comes a legitimate investigation, they are often moved aside, fired, or retaliated against.

So, I welcome the gentleman's enthusiasm. I hope he will join with me in supporting giving the power to IGs to conduct legitimate investigations of waste, fraud, and abuse.

As I said in my opening remarks, for every dollar we spend on IGs, we get back $17, really hundreds of millions of dollars back from their oversight and work.

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the gentleman, as he knows from our hearings, there are many provisions in this bill that are bipartisan, several that Mr. Connolly just mentioned that we were working on. I look forward to working with him and passing this bill.

It should be bipartisan. Oversight and accountability should be bipartisan. I hope the gentleman joins us in voting for this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), the chair of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Armed Services Committee. She also serves on the Oversight and Reform Committee and is the co-chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Jackie Speier, for her tremendous work on this bill, and one of the major provisions was a bill of hers that was incorporated into it.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a newly elected Member from the great State of North Carolina and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Independence is the bedrock principle of inspectors general, and this legislation would protect and enhance their critical work.

As I mentioned earlier, this legislation has the support of several nonpartisan, good government groups, including the Project on Government Oversight, the Government Accountability Project, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and many, many others. It also contains several bipartisan bills that are part of the overall inspector general reform bill. I ask that the support letters from the good government groups be included in the Record.

June 28, 2021.

Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations write to

express our support for the IG Independence and Empowerment

Act (H.R. 2662) and to urge you to vote for this critical

legislation.

Our federal inspectors general (IGs) identify and

investigate waste, fraud, and abuse within the executive

branch. The importance of their work cannot be overstated.

Executive branch officials and Members of Congress from both

sides of the aisle rely on oversight conducted by inspectors

general to inform their policy-making. These watchdogs

continually return substantial savings for taxpayers. In

fiscal year 2020 alone, inspectors general identified

potential savings of approximately $53 billion. And perhaps

most importantly, inspectors general investigate and expose

abuses of power that may infringe on constitutional rights.

If enacted, this legislation would address critical

weaknesses in laws that have limited the effectiveness and

threatened the independence of these watchdogs.

For example, most inspectors general lack the authority to

compel former agency officials, subcontractors, or

subgrantees to cooperate with IG investigations. This has

limited the ability of our watchdogs to effectively review

federal programs for waste and fraud and to investigate

federal employees accused of misconduct. The IG Independence

and Empowerment Act would address this by giving inspectors

general the authority to compel testimony from former agency

officials, subcontractors, or grantees where that testimony

would be relevant to ongoing investigations.

Another weakness is that the president can fire these

watchdogs and replace them with unqualified or conflicted

individuals, exposing the work of these offices to

unnecessary political interference. The public and Congress

depend on inspectors general to ensure our federal agencies

are functioning effectively, but these watchdogs must be

confident they will not be fired for doing that job well. As

nine former inspectors general recently wrote to Congress,

``Forcing inspectors general to choose between doing their

jobs with integrity and keeping their positions is not an

acceptable model of governance and oversight.'' The IG

Independence and Empowerment Act places reasonable limits on

when a president can remove an inspector general and who can

serve in the event of a vacancy, and will further insulate

the critical oversight offices from politics.

There are many other critical reforms in this comprehensive

legislation that have been crafted to address problems with

inspector general independence and authority long raised by

Congress, civil society, and our inspectors general. We

strongly urge Congress to pass this legislation to empower

our independent watchdogs to serve the public even more

effectively.

Sincerely,

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

(CREW), Common Cause, Demand Progress, Government

Accountability Project, Government Information Watch,

Mainers for Accountable Leadership, National Security

Counselors, Open The Government, Project On Government

Oversight (POGO), Protect Democracy, Public Citizen,

Stand Up America, Taxpayers for Common Sense, The

Digital Democracy Project.

The reforms we are considering today are only one part of the work Congress needs to prevent future Presidents from abusing power. I also strongly support the broad Protecting Our Democracy Act, which Chairman Schiff has spearheaded, and I look forward to that bill's consideration very soon.

I do want to say that the Select Committee on the Coronavirus Crisis, unlike the description from my good friend and colleague, has held 15 hearings of oversight. They have disclosed and recovered millions of dollars of illegal spending or corrupt spending. There is a hearing tomorrow, which will be the 16th hearing of the committee, and we welcome you to join us at that subcommittee hearing if you so wish.

The inspector general community just, in general, has been attacked in recent years. By passing this IG Independence and Empowerment Act, Congress would send a strong message in the strongest terms that no administration, regardless of President or party, can bully or retaliate or act against an IG when the IG is doing their job. They can only be removed for just cause, such as violating the law or gross mismanagement.

In passing this legislation, we will be strengthening our democracy, and we will send a strong message that Congress supports accountability and an effective government.

I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill. It should be a bipartisan bill.

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 504, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, the amendment offered by Congresswoman Cindy Axne would increase transparency when an inspector general is removed.

This amendment would require the President or independent agency head to provide Congress a detailed case-specific explanation when firing an

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter), one of the newest members of our caucus. He serves on the Committees of Transportation and Infrastructure and Small Business.

Madam Speaker, I support all of the en bloc amendments, including Mr. Carter's, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment

Madam Speaker, this amendment would absolutely gut the bill. The amendment would strike the bill's key protection for inspectors general against political retaliation by eliminating the protection that would only allow an IG to be removed only for a legitimate cause. Not for political retaliation, not because a President doesn't like what they are doing or an investigation that they have started, but only for mismanagement or illegal acts for cause.

We saw last year how unlimited authority can be abused when President Trump bullied and retaliated against two IGs who were investigating his administration, including when he fired the State Department IG. These protections are constitutional.

Last month, the Independent Congressional Review Service released an analysis of congressional authority to limit the removal of IGs and concluded that for-cause removal restrictions ``appear to be a constitutionally permissible means of encouraging independence for most IGs.''

Madam Speaker, this amendment would also gut the protection in the bill against the appointment of acting IGs with a clear conflict of interest. The amendment would strike a requirement that acting IGs come from an Office of Inspector General. The Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency requested this reform, proposed by Republican Representative Porter, as one of its top legislative priorities in order to ``enhance the independence of OIGs.''

We saw serious abuses during the last administration. In both the Department of Transportation and the Department of State, President Trump named political appointees within the agency to serve as the acting IG overseeing the same agency.

Finally, this amendment would strip from the bill an important reform that would allow IGs to issue a subpoena to require individuals outside of the Federal Government to provide testimony, if needed, for an investigation. This has long been a priority for inspectors general to allow thorough and complete investigations.

Madam Speaker, multiple IGs have reported that Trump administration officials, including Jeff Sessions, have refused to cooperate with investigations. No Federal employee should be able to simply avoid and escape accountability by leaving government and saying, ``I just no longer will testify or participate in finding the truth.''

These provisions were passed by the Committee on Oversight and Reform and the House in 2018, in a Republican-led bill, and contained carefully crafted compromises struck by Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings years ago.

Madam Speaker, this legislation provides procedural safeguards to ensure that subpoena authority is not abused and it does not interfere with ongoing investigations. For example, the bill will require an inspector general to obtain the approval of a panel of three other inspectors general in order to issue a subpoena for testimony.

A few IGs, including the Department of Defense IG, already have this authority. The language I authored and that the Congress passed on a bipartisan basis, the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee was provided testimonial subpoena authority when it was created as part of the CARES Act last Congress.

There are many instances of former officials and nongovernment employees avoiding IG interviews going back over a decade. For example, IGs were unable to interview retired agents in the ``Fast and Furious'' investigation, and nongovernment witnesses to the Carter-Page FISA warrant investigation.

This has never been a partisan issue before. In fact, the underlying bill had many, many bipartisan pieces. So in a letter to the Committee on Oversight and Reform, Department of Justice Inspector General has also come out against this.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 508 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), 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, on Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House Resolution 508, to provide for further consideration of H.R. 3684, the INVEST in America Act under a structured rule.

The rule makes in order 149 amendments and provides en bloc authority to the chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

The rule also allows for consideration of concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment during the month of July, and provides that the provisions of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act shall not apply for the remainder of the 117th Congress to a joint resolution terminating the national emergency declared by the President on March 13, 2020.

Lastly, the rule provides for recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through July 30, 2021.

Madam Speaker, our roads and bridges are crumbling before our eyes, and our public transportation systems are suffering drastically from reduced ridership during the pandemic. With these challenges comes a great opportunity. Our country can use this unique once-in-a-generation opportunity to reimagine and rebuild our community in America's transportation systems and build back better.

As a former member of the California Air Resources Board and a former chair of both the State Assembly Transportation Committee and the State Senate Transportation Committee and a former member of the Bay Area's MPO, I have spent my career focused on the transportation sector and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants to help fight against climate change.

In my 30 years of public service, never has the time been more ripe to seize this opportunity to reimagine and reinvest in America's transportation infrastructure.

The INVEST in America Act offers a new approach to Federal transportation policy by emphasizing fixing our existing roads and bridges first and making record investments in passenger rail, public transit, cycling and walking infrastructure, and zero-emission options while creating safer, more connected communities for all Americans. This bill would also help create millions of jobs that cannot be exported.

Thanks to strong Buy American provisions and labor protections, including Davis-Bacon, the work will be fueled by American workers, manufacturing, and ingenuity, with targeted investments in rural and underserved communities.

Madam Speaker, our country badly needs the investments outlined in this bill. Over 40 percent of America's roads are in poor or mediocre condition, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. In fact, our roads have a D rating, and American motorists are forced to pay over $1,000 every year in wasted time and fuel as a result of our failure to act.

In my own State, California's infrastructure does not fare any better. We have a C-minus rating overall, with a D rating for roads and a C-minus for bridges and transit, in spite of California voters voting over and over again to tax themselves to invest in our infrastructure.

Not only is the problem of crumbling infrastructure a detriment to our economy, but it is dangerous to public safety. Over 36,000 Americans die on our Nation's roadways every year. The INVEST in America Act directs $343 billion to roads, bridges, and safety programs, with record levels of investment in walking and cycling infrastructure, complete streets planning and smarter road design, and safe routes to schools.

This transformative bill also directs Federal investments in transit and rail and reimagines our national transportation policies. Public transit is essential to everyday living in communities across the country, providing access to jobs, schools, healthcare, and childcare.

Currently, there is a $176 billion transit backlog, and transit ridership, of course, is declining because of COVID-19. These issues, if not addressed, stand to further increase congestion, hamper the economy, worsen air quality, and disproportionately affect underserved communities.

The INVEST in America Act provides $109 billion for transit to create a safe and reliable transit system that ensures every American, including those

in economically disadvantaged and underserved neighborhoods, can get to essential services, as I have said, like jobs, healthcare, and childcare.

Importantly, this effort takes every opportunity to meet the challenges of the climate crisis. Climate change is the defining challenge of our time, and transportation is the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions. The INVEST in America Act takes bold steps to build the clean infrastructure and transportation sector of the future by reforming existing programs and launching new initiatives to reduce carbon pollution.

For example, it invests $8.3 billion in highway, transit, and rail projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it holds States accountable for their performance by measuring annual progress.

Moreover, under the Clean Corridors program, a program that I was proud to author, it invests $4 billion in electric vehicle charging and alternative fueling stations. This infrastructure along designated corridors will help reduce range anxiety and help America shift to the next generation of clean vehicles.

To further address climate change and equity, this bill increases funding and incentives for transit-oriented development, ensuring that more Americans have access to walkable and transit-supportive communities, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions and, most importantly, improving their quality of life and their ability to be at home with their family.

Finally, this bill invests in safe drinking water infrastructure by replacing dangerous lead piping and treating PFAS in our water supply. It will also help ensure that all families can afford a safe and reliable water supply.

Madam Speaker, we cannot allow this opportunity to slip through our fingers. Now is the time for transformative investments in our transportation systems and our infrastructure to improve our roads, bridges, railways, and transit systems to support American workers, to address equity and environmental justice, and to fight boldly against the climate crisis.

That is why I proudly support the INVEST in America Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to continuing this dialogue respectfully.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), a very distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania on his kind observation about my own personal health.

Just in regards to this debate, as somebody who went into the ICU on the first date in the State of California that the Governor of California actually required shelter in place, and I was then put on a ventilator for 4 weeks at the same time that the country was dealing with this pandemic, maybe I have a little unique perspective.

So evidence-based research maybe is in the mind of the beholder. I trust my doctors. I know they are human, and I know evidence-based research is the reason I stand here in front of you, Madam Speaker, by following the doctors.

I think of what the Speaker is doing and what the President is doing, and that is following evidence-based research and statistically protecting Americans. We know if Americans get vaccinated, we know if we are sensitive to distances around us and masking, we still have challenges. And for somebody like myself, who has an underlying health condition, I am particularly sensitive to this. Not everybody is in the same position vis-a-vis their medical risks.

So with all due respect, the debate is always a good one, but from my perspective I wish that people would keep in mind that this pandemic is not done until the evidence-based research indicates that it is done. I know everybody wants to get back to normal. I know I do too, as well, but I would like to be able to enjoy this wonderful existence that we all are allowed to do as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

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

Just briefly on the points that were just brought up. As somebody who represents a county that has four refineries in it, those four refineries produce much of the refined CARB-certified fuel on the West Coast and in California. Also, a county that is headquarters to the second largest energy company in the United States, Chevron, this isn't about ending the fossil fuel industry.

It is about the transition from that energy source to a new, cleaner, renewable, alternative fuel energy source. It is about being independent and being mindful about what our global competitors are doing; what the Chinese are doing to get ahead of us in this energy source.

So with all due respect, as someone who knows the benefit and also the dangers and the opportunities to the fossil fuel industry, as we have experienced it in this country, those four refineries only employ people, as required by State statute, who have graduated from State- approved apprenticeship programs, the best apprenticeship programs in the world. Each one of those jobs have a multiplier of 14. We like those jobs. We want to keep those jobs.

But we want to meet the reductions we have to have to be leaders in this country on climate reductions, and prepare for a future that isn't dependent on the fossil fuel industry; both for our public health, and our environment, and for our economy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

A couple of points. I appreciate the attention to the Clean Corridors Program. Again, this is about preparing for the future, from my perspective. This bill prepares for the future, and it prepares American workers to transition to that future and future generations.

On the Clean Corridors Program, Chinese are already doing this. In December, they produced 100,000 new charging and alternative fuel stations to prepare for the future. The Chinese have over a million of these stations. The U.S. has less than 50,000.

So if we want to talk about energy independence, right on. That is what we want to talk about. We want to prepare America for the future, while we protect the planet.

The State of California gets more venture capital for research and renewables and alternative fuels than the other 49 States combined.

Why is that?

Because we are preparing for the future. We want to be competitive, and we want our workforce to continue to be the best in the world when it comes to energy. And we want to compete against the Chinese so that we are ready to capture these new energy sources. And we are doing it.

It is not only good for the environment, it is good for the economy.

And I would say, as a Californian who has been in the middle of this--and I will agree to being a liberal. I was once described as a liberal Republican under former party affiliations. I don't think there is any such thing anymore, probably.

This is about preparing for the future. And mostly it is about preparing our American workforce to continue to be what they have been for so long, the best workforce, the best workers in the world. But you give them the tools to do that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires), my good friend.

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

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

I want to thank my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania. I do appreciate his comments about my personal health and also his collegiality.

His comments about being bipartisan, I completely agree with. But compromise requires, from my perspective--and granted, we do have a different perspective about how we get there and who is giving and how much is given.

I really think this bill is an incredibly important bill for the future of America and American workers and innovation.

As far as changing to renewables and alternatives, that electrical system has to be upgraded. We have seen what has happened because of climate change in the Gulf. We see the struggles we have on the West Coast with fires, all because, as evidence-based research tells us, what we have done with the environment and the benefits we have gotten from fossil fuels over the course of the last decades and century.

But now is the time to change and prepare for that change--not mindlessly. This isn't a radical proposal. This is about preparing for the future.

In terms of the infrastructure that gets those new alternative fuels, hydrogen fuel cell cars, battery electric cars, in California, we have acknowledged that we need to get these cars to be available to everyone, including people from disadvantaged communities. That is why we have changed the tax code to make it easier for everyone to get an alternative fuel car, not just wealthy people, and get the benefits of that.

I want to read a quote from Forbes magazine about infrastructure and electric cars: ``These vehicles use a different kind of fuel and plug into our electricity system, and the good news about that is there are a number of cost-benefit studies,'' numerous ones, ``that are showing this can be really beneficial to all ratepayers, not just the drivers of the vehicles.''

The critical mass of changing helps everybody. It brings down the cost of energy. So, for those rising costs at the pump, there is a bend in the arc that will come sooner rather than later that will help everyone, as opposed to the opinions by my colleague and some of his other speakers today.

Matt Stanberry, the managing director for the advanced transportation program at the trade group Advanced Energy Economy, says: ``As you increase electricity sales for charging the vehicles, it has the effect of driving down rates for all ratepayers because it spreads the fixed cost of the system out across a larger volume of sales.''

Madam Speaker, this is about preparing for this new energy future. Whoever gets there first, as a country, as always in our history, has a predominant role in foreign affairs and the leadership on this globe. The Chinese are trying to beat us to that. We can't let that happen. We talk about global competitiveness. We need to get the infrastructure in. Yes, they need to do a better job at reducing pollution, traditional pollutants and carbon.

The Clean Air Act, originally signed by Richard Nixon, and then changed and amended by Ronald Reagan, two Republicans, and the waiver that, unfortunately, previous administrations gave to California through multiple generations, have fueled, pardon the expression, the benefits we have gotten in public health and traditional pollutants. It is fueling today the States that join California, like Colorado, which are pushing this innovation.

Madam Speaker, this is about the future of America and America's excellence and its energy independence and its workforce, staying at home and providing for this energy independence for future generations.

Madam Speaker, in a moment, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order the amendment offered by Ms. Slotkin, which amends the underlying bill to prohibit using transit funds for artwork and nonfunctional landscaping.

Amendment Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 504, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 503) establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, 175 days ago, as we gathered here in this spot, the House floor became a crime scene. The U.S. Capitol, this temple of democracy, was ransacked. Property was damaged, and more importantly, lives were lost.

Insurrectionists tried to stop our democracy in its tracks. A mob wanted to prevent the certification of a free and fair election in America, and they resorted to violence to do it.

I will never forget that day. I was one of the last Members off this House floor, as we were being taken to a secure location away from the mayhem.

As I was walking out, I looked over and saw these people--homegrown terrorists, I call them--literally smashing the doors with their bare fists and breaking the glass to try to get at us.

They weren't here to peacefully protest. They were fueled by rage and here to cause harm. I looked in their eyes, and I saw hate.

Many of my colleagues feared for their lives. Some called loved ones to say good-bye. The staff that worked here barricaded their office doors. They ran down these marble halls, trying one door after the next, just searching for safety. Others hid in closets, terrified.

When those of us who are elected to Congress put our names on the ballot, we are prepared to take all kinds of incoming. But the staff here--the cafeteria workers, the cleaning crew, the people who make our democracy function day in and day out--they do not. But, still, they found themselves in danger, afraid for their lives.

We must speak the truth of what happened that day, Madam Speaker. Shockingly, there is an effort by some in this Congress to whitewash and minimize what went on. One of my colleagues even suggested it was somehow just a normal tourist visit, as if facts don't matter, as if we all didn't see with our own eyes what happened.

History will judge how we respond to the events of that day, and the glare of history should be cast most harshly on the minority leader, who worked overtime to prevent a bipartisan, bicameral commission from being formed to examine what happened on January 6.

A bipartisan commission emerged out of the Homeland Security Committee with a bipartisan vote. Everything the minority leader asked for in this commission, he got it. He got it all. But then, I guess, Donald Trump called him, and he began walking back his support and whipping against his own ranking member's bipartisan deal.

It has been 25 weeks since an insurrection in our country. A commission should be already at work right now, getting the facts about this attack on our democracy so it will never, ever, ever happen again.

Sadly, a majority of Republicans objected to that happening. Now, they may have delayed uncovering the truth, Madam Speaker. But, Madam Speaker, the truth will not stay buried forever. That is why we are here today, because the facts matter.

A select committee will finally get to the truth about the events of January 6. It is modeled after a select committee formed when my Republican colleagues were in charge.

I hope I am wrong, but if past is prologue, many of my Republican friends will stand up today and say no. They will oppose this select committee and say they want a different approach.

Well, let me again remind them: We already gave them exactly what they asked for with the commission, and even that wasn't good enough. I think, for some on the other side, nothing that gets to the truth will ever be good enough because they do not want the truth.

Michael Fanone, a Metropolitan Police Department officer for nearly two decades, responded to the insurrection on January 6. In a letter that he wrote to all of us, he said: ``I struggle daily with the emotional anxiety of having survived such a traumatic event, but I also struggle with the anxiety of hearing those who continue to downplay the events of that day and those who would ignore them altogether with their lack of acknowledgment. The indifference shown to my colleagues and I is disgraceful.''

Madam Speaker, I include the full text of his letter in the Record.

May 5, 2021.

To All Elected Members of the United States Government, My

name is Michael Fanone and I have been a sworn officer with

the Metropolitan Police Department for almost two decades. On

January 06, 2021, I participated in the defense of the United

States Capitol and as a result of my efforts was severely

injured. I was pulled out into the crowd, away from my fellow

officers, beaten with fists, metal objects, stripped of my

issued badge, radio and ammunition magazine and electrocuted

numerous times with a Taser. I am writing to you so that you

may better understand my experience that day.

I am assigned to the First District's Crime Suppression

Team and while my daily responsibilities involve combating

violent crime and narcotics related offenses. I, like many

other officers, took it upon myself to respond to the

numerous calls for help coming from my colleagues at the

Capitol Complex. Upon my arrival my partner, Jimmy Albright,

and I searched for an area where we could be of most

assistance and eventually found our way to the West Terrace

Lower Tunnel entrance to the Capitol. The fighting here was

nothing short of brutal. I observed approximately thirty

police officers standing shoulder-to-shoulder maybe four or

five abreast using the weight of their own bodies to hold

back the onslaught of violent attackers. Many of these

officers were injured, bleeding and fatigued but they

continued to fight.

In the midst of this fighting, I observed Commander Ramey

Kyle, cool, calm, and collected giving commands to his

officers. ``Hold the line.'' It was the most inspirational

moment of my entire life. Even as I write this it brings me

to tears. I tried to render assistance to some of the injured

officers asking them if they needed a break. There were no

volunteers, only those that identified injured colleagues who

may be in need of assistance. I have never experienced such

bravery, courage and selflessness.

Since then I have struggled with many aspects of that day.

As the physical injuries gradually subsided in crept the

psychological trauma. In many ways I still live my life as if

it is January 07, 2021. I struggle daily with the emotional

anxiety of having survived such a traumatic event but I also

struggle with the anxiety of hearing those who continue to

downplay the events of that day and those who would ignore

them altogether with their lack of acknowledgement. The

indifference shown to my colleagues and I is disgraceful.

It has been 119 days since 850 Metropolitan Police (MPDC)

Officers responded to the Capitol and stopped a violent

insurrection from taking over the Capitol Complex saving

countless Members of Congress and their staff from almost

certain injury and even death. The time to fully recognize

these Officers actions is NOW!

Sincerely,

Michael Fanone.

Madam Speaker, I am tired of the delays. Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of the fact that there are too many people in this Chamber who continue to put party over country and propagate the lies, distortions, and falsehoods that led to January 6. It is disgusting.

For Congress to do nothing in response to a literal insurrection would allow our democracy to be chipped away at from the inside. Not on my watch.

Our system of government is fragile. It is not a given; it is a choice. Looking down on us from the gallery right now are representatives of the D.C. Metropolitan Police and the U.S. Capitol Police, and I want to thank them and their colleagues for their service and for protecting us and our democracy on January 6.

To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are about to vote ``no'' on this, please, no lectures on respect for the police because a ``no'' vote is a vote to cover for those who brutally attacked the police on January 6.

I say to my colleagues in this House, they will be watching as we cast our votes. History will be watching. I pray that we have the moral courage to do what is right, that we choose truth and that we choose to defend our democracy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Oh, my God, I can't believe what I just heard. I mean, my Republican colleagues are talking about the need for bipartisanship. We gave them bipartisanship. The ranking Republican member on the Homeland Security Committee endorsed a bipartisan commission, and my friends on the other side, including the gentlewoman who just spoke, voted ``no'' on it.

Now, they are objecting to a select committee that we are forming that is exactly like the select committee that they formed when they were in charge. Give me a break.

This is clear--people should know this--they don't want to get to the truth. But we will insist that we get to the truth.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, who did such an incredible job in negotiating a bipartisan commission.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the other side to stop the lame excuses. Now they are blaming the Senate?

Let's go over the chronology: Leader McCarthy had a bunch of demands in order that we move forward with a bipartisan commission. We gave him every one.

And then what happened is, I guess, he didn't expect us to actually work with him on this in a bipartisan way. There is a quote that appeared in Politico from a Republican aide who said: ``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's a sham operation.

``Because he knows Trump is going to `lose his mind over this commission'.''

And then all the sudden, he comes out against it, and 175 of my Republican colleagues voted against a bipartisan commission. They sent a signal to the Senate to kill it.

So the idea that somehow they are washing their hands of any responsibility, they were complicit in killing the bipartisan commission.

And now they are here to try to kill a select committee modeled after a committee that they established when they were in charge.

So enough of the lame excuses. We get it. You don't want to get to the truth.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Madam Speaker, I am sorry that the previous speaker doesn't see the importance of trying to get to the bottom of an attack on our democracy.

And by the way, for the Record, the gentlewoman voted against the bipartisan commission.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Madam Speaker, the language on consultation is the exact same language that was in the Select Committee on Benghazi.

Let's just be honest. My friends on the other side are not interested in getting to the truth.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Madam Speaker, let me again say it is the exact same language that was in their Benghazi Select Committee. And I am more than happy to send over a paper copy so they can see it.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the U.S. Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I was one of the last people off this House floor. When I walked into the Speaker's lobby, I saw this mob smashing the window, trying to get at us. And we were protected because of the Capitol Police and the D.C. police who were here. They protected my life. They protected your life.

And to them: I apologize that you have to hear this kind of debate, a partisan attempt to try to undermine a committee that is aimed at getting at the truth of what happened. You deserve better.

The people who work up here deserve better. Our democracy deserves better.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 503.