Emergency Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021

Mr. President, the word ``republic'' means public thing in Latin.

We bring our different perspectives and our different identities together respectfully to make decisions for an entire Nation. The United States is a nation with diverse, varied beliefs, different cultural origins, and different politics from the different regions and different States that we represent. It has been this way from the very beginning.

As much as some of us imagine otherwise, from the very outset of our Republic, there were immense, regional differences. Depending on which State someone represented, they might have different views.

Now, our Republic--and, for that matter, any republic ever in the history of republics--has relied on the willingness of the citizenry to be kind, for individuals who play a role in that Republic to be kind and respectful and decent to each other, even when--especially when--we disagree with each other. Our Founders knew that, and they enshrined it into our Constitution.

As much as anything, they assumed it, and it was on that set of assumptions that the norms enshrined in the Constitution became possible, because without them they would not be. Without them none of this would work.

You see, the only way a republic can possibly function now or 250 years ago or 250 years from now is that it always has to follow a somewhat similar formula. The only way it can function is when citizens and leaders are gracious to those with whom they disagree and grant the freedom necessary to allow others to make choices, even if those choices might be things that they disagree with.

We have witnessed the degradation of American political discourse for some time now. It has been a sad, tragic reality unfolding, but it is not an inexorable conclusion. It is not one from which we cannot depart. But we must make a choice to do better and to choose a better path.

We received a bulletin earlier today--a bulletin from the Capitol Police--indicating that all visitors and all House staffers and, in fact, all House Members are required to wear masks indoors or be denied entry or forced to leave the premises. And at least in the case of staff and visitors, if they fail to comply, they will be arrested-- arrested for unlawful entry. Conviction for a violation of this rule will, according to the bulletin, be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both. The Senate, which happens to be housed in the same building as the House, is not subject to these same requirements.

But is this decision based on science or is it based on the will and whim of the Speaker of the House of Representatives? Whatever the reason, the arrest of peaceful House staffers shows the total loss of political grace in the House of Representatives.

I cannot fathom a legitimate reason to arrest a person in this building for not wearing a mask. I cannot fathom a legitimate reason for arresting anyone based on a failure to wear a mask.

Members are not treated as the legitimate representatives of their constituents, as in fact they are, under our system of government, when they are subjected to this kind of manipulation and when they are subjected to this type of oppressive order. Staff, under this type of oppressive directive, aren't treated as hard-working, dedicated Americans, which truly they are. Instead, everyone who doesn't comply is deemed the enemy of the current House of Representatives. There is no room for disagreement or dissent.

It is tragic, indeed, to see a key deliberative body where dissent and debate are supposed to be tolerated and appreciated and decided and have been not just for decades but for centuries--to see that turned into a place where disagreement and dissent are disdained and punished by arrests.

Congress works on collegiality and respect. We need to get back to those basics.

Regardless of what you might think about the coronavirus, about the vaccine, about masks, there is never a good reason to arrest someone for not wearing a mask.

This decision falls into the larger context of the Centers for Disease Control's recent flip-flop on masks and the Biden administration's worrying push toward masks and vaccination mandates.

The CDC issued updated recommendations earlier this week, stating at its outset that masks should be worn indoors in areas of ``substantial or high transmission,'' even by individuals who have been fully vaccinated.

Now, this new guidance claims that ``[e]merging evidence suggests that fully vaccinated persons who do become infected with the Delta variant are at risk for transmitting it to others.'' But one glaring thing is missing from that conclusion: evidence backing up the CDC's claims.

In fact, the CDC didn't publish any new research on the effectiveness of the COVID vaccines against the newer variants when it issued its latest edict. The CDC's website simply cites ``unpublished data'' from its own COVID-19 Response Team when it makes this new, rather significant, rather jarring, rather impactful, and rather unwise claim.

The CDC is undermining its own credibility and, thus, I believe placing public health and safety at risk by going back and forth on recommendations and failing to be upfront about whether there is any actual reliable scientific evidence to support or compel those recommendations.

In fact, even when asked questions by Members of Congress, the CDC is failing to respond. This is not hyperbole; this is not conjecture; this is based on my own personal experience. I will point to the fact that on April 24, more than 3 months ago, I sent a letter to the Centers for Disease Control asking a very simple question, a simple question that I would hope anyone here would want to be asked. I wanted to know why is it, when there are so many of our peer nations around the world that don't require masks to be worn on airplanes, for example, by children as young as 2, as we do in the United States--you know, many of our peer nations, a mask requirement may not kick in until 10 or 11 years old or, in some cases, 5 or 6 years old. But, here, the CDC has said that it has got to kick in at 2 years old. I would ask the question: Did any of these people who made this recommendation, who made that conclusion that 2-year-olds should have to travel with a mask, have they ever known an actual 2-year-old? Have they ever raised a child? Have they ever traveled on an airplane? Have they ever traveled in a car, in a bus, on a train, in the rain, anywhere with an actual child? This doesn't work.

Now, when you add that to the fact that children react to the virus differently than adults do--and that is putting it mildly--when you add that to the fact that this creates other problems for children, not just for those handling them but for the kids themselves, it makes it especially important to know why.

Now, my letter wasn't attempting to make any case. My letter was simply trying to obtain information. You see, because when the CDC makes these sweeping recommendations, and sometimes they like to make them feel easier by calling them recommendations, when, in fact, they precipitate a whole host of things that feel a whole lot more binding than recommendations. You see, because if you get on an airplane or a bus or a train or you go to a bus depot or a train station or an airport, and you have got a 2-year-old who won't wear a mask, as any red-blooded American 2-year-old will not do, you are told that you are subject to arrest and that you are violating Federal law if you do that. So it is not unreasonable to ask that they pony up with information. If they are going to make recommendations, they should explain to us what those recommendations are.

So I asked them what scientific proof is there that a 2-year-old needs to wear a mask?

Well, I sent that on April 24. I didn't hear anything on April 25 or April 26 or the 27th or the 28th, 29th, or 30th, or any of the days of the months of May or June or July, and we are almost to the end of the month of July. They didn't respond to this. I don't know why. Maybe they are really busy doing other stuff. Maybe they are really busy figuring out where they are going to flip-flop next and where they are going to issue their next edict that the American people are expected to follow, all

in the name of it being science, that we have to defer to blindly, without any evidence. But this isn't acceptable, and it doesn't inspire confidence, nor does it inspire confidence for an Agency that makes these sorts of recommendations that have a really significant impact to flip-flop and not justify its own analysis, not provide even a scintilla of scientific proof for what it did.

So let's get back to its more recent flip-flop. The fact that it has flip-flopped this week, coupled with the fact that it hasn't backed up its other claims over the last few months, is understandably troubling to many of us, especially so, when you consider the fact that in my personal experience, I have been vaccinated. I chose to get the vaccine. I respect those who have chosen not to.

Many of those I have known who have been reluctant to get the vaccine, who eventually got the vaccine, most of them, I would say, ended up getting it when they realized that certain aspects of life could be made mor predictable and more convenient if they did get the vaccine.

Many people, when they walked into a hotel lobby or a restaurant or a grocery store or at Costco or at Sam's Club, if they would see signs saying that vaccinated persons need not wear masks, they would realize there is some benefit there; that if they got the vaccine, they could walk in there and say, well, I don't have to wear the mask.

Now, obviously, we don't ever want to get to the point where somebody has to wear an arm band to prove whether they have been vaccinated or not. In fact, it would be an absolutely horrifying experiment that we should not attempt. But the fact is, that when people see that there might be some benefit, they are more likely to do it. If they see that something different will happen in their life if they get the vaccine, they are more likely to get it.

But when you are constantly moving the goalpost, you are saying: ``Here are the benefits of the vaccine. Oh, psych, just kidding. We are moving along. We are going to take those away,'' people are not going to get it. So if you want more people to get vaccinated, you darn well better have the CDC getting its act together, providing scientific evidence for what the CDC is recommending and what it is not.

So, look, I am still waiting for answers from the CDC on my April 24 letter. And I am still waiting for answers from the CDC when it comes to scientific evidence supporting their most recent flip-flop. But while we wait for those answers, and that clock is ticking--I don't know whether we need to start humming the tune to ``Jeopardy,'' but they do need to provide those answers. And while we wait for those answers, here are a few principles that I think might help guide some of our discussions:

Our government needs to trust Americans to make these decisions, some of the most personal decisions that a human being can make for themselves. We need to trust the people's representatives in Congress to make decisions regarding the law. We need to be able to trust each other, to be decent, and to be kind when we disagree.

We have to learn from our own history, from our own nature as individuals, and from the history that we have experienced as a nation. We cannot stand by while those in power simply decide on their own whim that they are going to arrest political opponents for disagreeing.

At what point did we decide that it was OK to cross that threshold? I get it. We always need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. Sometimes that is really hard. Sometimes all of us fall a little short of that mark. But I think all of us should be able to agree that we shouldn't arrest those who disagree with us merely because they disagree with us. That is wrong. We are better than that.

This time calls for more political understanding and hardy, legitimate debate, not blind mandates and manipulation.

We have to remember that, at its heart, at its core, government is not deity. It is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Government doesn't have eyes to see you. It doesn't have arms with which to embrace you. It doesn't have a heart with which to love you. Government is force. It is the official use of coercive force.

Now, we need that. We need that to protect safety, to make sure that we don't hurt each other; that we are not harmed by others; that we don't take each other's possessions. But we have to be very careful how we operate it because otherwise force is just force. And if we start arresting everyone with whom we disagree, we are not going to be able to do the things we need to do, which is to make sure that government is there to prevent people from hurting each other and taking each other's things.

We need to be kind to our neighbors, even when--especially when--we disagree. We need to be helpful and caring to those around us, even if they vote, feel, believe, or even act very differently than we do. We must not allow for arrests and mandates to Members of Congress and their staffs without providing sufficient evidence.

And, yes, all of this stuff goes both ways. We all need to be respectful of each other's opinions. But, look, we are not talking here about activity that, by its very nature, is so harmful that it warrants the use of blunt political force in the form of an arrest.

I cannot fathom a circumstance in which it is ever appropriate to arrest another human being for not wearing a mask, COVID or no COVID. That is not arrest material.

In Congress and across the country, what we need now is a return to American graciousness. Our way of life and our precious Republic are at stake.

Thank you.

Mr. President, as we have undertaken this conversation, I can't help but reflect on the fact that we are here in a representative body. We are here in order to have an exchange of ideas. We are here to engage in political speech, not the kind of political speech that people think of when they think of the word ``politics,'' where they think of something necessarily unpleasant. You know, when people hear the word ``political'' or ``politics,'' they think of the two great roots of the word ``politics.'' You have poly, which means many; and ticks, which are blood-sucking parasites. And they assume if it is political, it is unpleasant.

But I am using the word ``political'' here in a different sense, the sense that refers to the body politic. It refers to the fact that we are doing the people's business. The exchange of information, of ideas is essential to everything we do.

Then it occurs to me that the mask discussion does carry a deeper meaning here, a deeper meaning that takes into account the fact that when we communicate--sometimes with words, sometimes without words, sometimes in print, sometimes with the spoken word, sometimes without any words at all--we are engaging in activity that is protected by the First Amendment.

Now, this is important to note in a wide swath of areas. It is important for how we worship or decline to do the same. It is important in how we express our viewpoints in our news, in our entertainment, media. In every aspect of our lives, it is important.

It is regarded as especially important in a body politic that people be able to express their feelings about government and about the role of government. It is also especially important here that people be able to speak and otherwise communicate in a way that is clear and unvarnished, unfiltered.

In fact, we go so far even as to protect Members of Congress from liability in what they would say on the floor of the Senate or the House of Representatives. We do that because we feel that a full, frank, informed discussion is important. We don't want Members being threatened with some sort of action, civil or criminal, based on things that they would utter here.

So freedom of speech is important for all citizens. It is also important to make sure that that freedom of speech is protected here.

It occurs to me that with the question of masks, the decision whether to wear a mask is not only deeply personal, but it is also, in this context, quite arguably expressive. Even before you utter a single word and regardless of whether you utter a single word, in many respects, your decision to wear a mask or not wear a mask is, itself, a form of expression. And as a form of suppression, it is protected.

In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has identified conduct that is expressive and therefore protected by the First Amendment, notwithstanding the fact that it doesn't necessarily involve words.

When you merge that with another line of analysis under First Amendment jurisprudence, we remember the fact that it is a problem whenever government suppresses speech in one way or another. It is especially problematic when the government tries to compel speech. When the government tries to direct an individual that he or she must utter certain words in order to be compliant with the dictates of the government, that implicates the compelled speech doctrine, and the compelled speech doctrine is an especially rigid one. It is an especially rigid one with very good reason.

You don't want to force people to say stuff. That is the not government's role. That is the whole idea behind the First Amendment, is that the government needs to stay out of our headspace. It needs to stay out of where we worship; it needs to stay out of our relationship with God; it needs to stay out of printing presses; and it needs to stay out of what we say.

Sometimes what we say can consist of things that don't even involve words, something as simple as whether or not to wear a mask. In addition to all of the other public policy reasons, in addition to all the problems with having a CDC issuing these sweeping mandates and edicts without bothering to back up those edicts with scientific justification--even after months and months of receiving inquiries from Members of the U.S. Senate that they do so--separate and apart from all of those issues, I think it is important for us to look at the speech element, the expressive conduct that is inherent in whether or not you wear a mask, and whether or not by compelling people to wear a mask, you are compelling people to engage in state-sponsored speech. You are telling them that they must send a message, a message with which they may well disagree.

Now, if I am wrong on this, if this is strictly a medical issue, then it will be backed up by scientific medical evidence. That is the nature of the problem that I have with the CDC's mandate, its ever-fluctuating mandate, its mandate that, as recently as a few days ago, flip-flopped yet again. If, in fact, it were medical and scientific, it would be backed up as such, but it is not.

This is a form of compelled speech, not as we traditionally understand it because compelled speech usually involves the utterance of specific words. But we know that speech can be protected, even if it doesn't involve words, if it is a type of expressive conduct, which wearing a mask is, especially if as here. We don't have scientific evidence making it a medical issue.

So I would ask the Speaker of the House: Are you really going to arrest people for not saying what you want them to say? That is not OK. If it would never be OK for you to arrest people for not saying words that you have prescribed for them, why is it OK for you to compel them to engage in expressive conduct now amounting to speech? It is not.

Make no mistake, this isn't medical. This isn't scientific. If it were, we would have evidence of such. We don't

In light of that, separate and apart from all the other problems-- problems that inhere in our form of government, problems that inhere in the fact we do, in fact, have three distinct branches of our Federal Government, that most laws are not Federal laws to begin with. Most laws originate in the States and in the localities. Most laws are not Federal, and they should never be.

But for those things that should be Federal laws, we have got one and only one branch of government that makes laws. It is no coincidence that the very first clause of the very first section of the very first article of the Constitution provides:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a

Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a

Senate and a House of Representatives.

Article I, section 7 then goes on to outline the formula contemplated in article I, section 1. In article I, section 7, it says that you can't make a law under our form of government--at least not a Federal law--without passage in the House of Representatives and passage in the Senate and presentment to the President of the United States.

In many respects, these recommendations issued by the CDC end up carrying the force of generally applicable Federal law. That is wrong. And in many, many respects, that is on us. We have done a horrible job over the last few years--I would say over the last few decades--I would say over the last 80, 85 years, really. I won't lay the

blame entirely at the feet of either party. In fact, this has happened under the control of different parties. It has happened with Senates and Houses of Representatives and White Houses of every conceivable partisan combination. We have seen the de facto outsourcing of our lawmaking authority to unelected, unidentifiable bureaucrats; men and women who, while well-educated, well-intentioned, hard-working, and highly specialized, don't work for the people. They don't work for you. You do not have the ability to elect them or unelect them.

You don't have the authority to replace them. That is why it is so dangerous for us to give them this sweeping authority. And even where they don't technically have authority that extends very far--and in this case, it is far too far, as evidenced by the fact that anytime you get on an airplane or other mode of public transportation, you are told that, under penalty of Federal law, you must wear a mask.

But I would ask, where is the act of Congress providing that? In what year did the Congress of the United States pass through the House and through the Senate and submit to the President of the United States for signature or veto a law stating that you must wear a mask on a plane or a train or a bus or in a bus depot or in a train station or in an airport under penalty of Federal law? There is no such law. You will not find it.

Now, you will find some other stuff in which we delegated far too much authority and given broad authority to the executive branch--to people like the CDC--to issue regulations. But as a matter of proper form, whenever they exercise that power, it is not appropriate for that to take effect by itself. It is not really a law in the constitutional sense of the word unless Congress has enacted it.

We have given them far too much power anyway. That is on us. We shouldn't do that. That is why I have been calling for years for reforms to this; why I have been calling for years for reforms, including but not limited to the REINS Act, which would require for any economically significant Federal regulation, before it takes effect, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress and presented to the President for signature or veto. It is why I have introduced the Global Trade Accountability Act, which would do for trade policy what the REINS Act does for regulatory policy. It is why we need to reform so many aspects of our laws, where we, as a practical matter, made the unelected and the unaccountable the supreme lawgivers, the lawmakers, law interpreters, and law enforcers.

This is not just something that can lead to tyranny; it is the very definition of tyranny, as every signer of the U.S. Constitution understood well. It is why they went to great lengths to separate out these three branches of government.

In addition to those problems with these edicts not based on science or medicine but based on political considerations that are ever- changing--it is why they are so sweeping. It is why they are so troubling.

But they are maybe even more troubling, still, for the additional constitutional reason that, at the end of the day, to whatever degree these are not rooted in medical science and fact--which I believe they are not or at least the CDC hasn't established as much, and they really do amount to something compelling expressive conduct, the suppression of an official orthodoxy mandated by the government--we shouldn't accept this. We shouldn't accept any affirmative legal obligation placed on those we represent, to whom and for whose been we have sworn an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which requires us to make any law we force on the American people. We have an obligation to them, a solemn obligation to make sure they are not subject to laws made by those not of their own choosing.

It is these very features that James Madison had in mind when he authored Federalist No. 62. When he wrote, and I am paraphrasing a little bit here: It will be of little benefit to the American people that their laws may be written by men of their own choosing if those laws be so voluminous, complex, and ever-changing, if they can't reasonably understand what the law means and predict what it will say from one day to the next.

Today--this week even--we have seen the law be so unpredictable and ever-changing, that we can't expect what the law says from one day to another. But even worse, contrary to what Madison assumed would always be the case because the Constitution required it, the laws aren't even being written by men and women of our own choosing but instead by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who, despite how well-educated, well-intentioned, hard-working, and highly-specialized they may be, don't work for you, nor do they have authority under this document, to which we have all sworn an oath, to make laws.

That is our power. Shame on us if we relinquish to them the power that only we can exercise, that is, itself, nondelegable. Shame on us, further, if we allow those same people who, lacking the authority to legislate in the first instance, then transgress another affirmative constitutional command by compelling compliance with official government-mandated orthodoxy.

This cannot be. This cannot stand. I will not stand for it, and I will continue to draw attention to this issue until we have resolved the problem.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

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

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't get it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liebengood Family Statement on the January 6th Commission and Security

Supplemental

Family of fallen USCP Officer Howie Liebengood calls on Congress to

pass both pieces of legislation

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

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

family of United States Capitol Police Officer Howie

Liebengood regarding the National Commission to Investigate

the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act

and the Emergency Security Supplemental to Respond to January

6th Appropriations Act.

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

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

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

was an immediate outgrowth of those events. Every officer who

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

better understanding of what happened. Uncovering the facts

will help our nation heal and may lessen the lingering

emotional bitterness that has divided our country. We implore

Congress to work as one and establish the proposed

Commission.

``Additionally, improved mental health for USCP officers

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

the tireless efforts of Congresswoman Wexton, we are honored

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

the security supplemental along with more resources for the

program. We welcome and support the new funding and staffing

initiatives that will help prevent future tragedies among the

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

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

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

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

[From BPC Action]

BPC Action Urges Support for H.R. 3233

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

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

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

shocking events and agree on how to ensure they never occur

again. The Bipartisan Policy Center is encouraged that the

agreement reflects the principles of 9-11 Commission chairs

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

accounting of the events of January 6th and the

identification of measures to strengthen the Congress can

help our country heal.''

A single narrative of the facts of that day and actionable

recommendations for preventing them from recurring are the

predicate for ensuring our democracy is respected and

protected. This bipartisan, independent commission is

structured so experts will be empowered to objectively assess

the evidence and chart a path forward.

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

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

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

imperative of national security. Twenty years later, we are

reminded of the security challenges this nation faces, and we

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

We applaud the House and Senate committees and law

enforcement investigations that have laid groundwork for an

independent commission to begin its work--and House and

Senate leaders, especially Chairman Bennie Thompson and

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

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

3233.

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

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

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

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

[From CNN, May 19, 2021]

Republicans Fear January 6 Probe Could Undercut 2022 Midterm Message

(By Manu Raju)

Senior Republicans are making clear they have little

interest in moving forward with a sweeping January 6

investigation in part because a detailed probe could become

politically damaging and amount to a distraction for their

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

midterm elections.

Publicly and privately, Republicans are making that case,

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

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

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

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

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

the economy and national security, safe streets and strong

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

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

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

looking backward. Anything that gets us rehashing the 2020

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

contrast between us the Democrats' very radical left-wing

agenda.''

Thune's comments came moments after Senate GOP Leader Mitch

McConnell announced his opposition on the floor, contending

it would duplicate ongoing probes

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

Republican and House Democrat--is designed to find a

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

commission would be structured so 10 members--chosen equally

between the leaders from both political parties--could report

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

``influencing factors'' behind it.

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

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

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

stolen and his efforts to subvert the will of voters.

Moreover, it could put an uncomfortable focus on some

conservative GOP senators and House members who sought to

overturn the election results in Congress, while keeping the

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

the next year.

And there are ample questions about whether House GOP

Leader Kevin McCarthy would be forced to testify to explain

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

a heated phone call that day.

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

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

extremism as well.

Similar concerns were voiced through the Senate Republican

Conference on Wednesday, coming hours after a group of

members huddled privately with McCarthy earlier in the

morning.

Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and member of

leadership, said that in addition to his concern about a

commission's work overlapping with criminal probes, he

accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of pushing the

investigation to help Democrats' chances at keeping control

of Congress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

60 votes would be needed to break a GOP filibuster.

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

the caucus' temperature yet on the plan.

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

happening in the House right now and whether or not what

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

Sen. Gary Peters, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial

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

battling the commission.

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

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

said Wednesday.

Asked if he is concerned the probe could last into the

midterm season when the GOP wants to focus on jobs,

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

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

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

have an infrastructure in place to address a lot of the

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

Tillis asked. ``Seems redundant.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I include that article in the Record.

[From the Washington Post, May 18, 2021]

Opinion: Kevin McCarthy Plumbs New Depths of Political Cowardice

(Opinion by the Editorial Board)

Democratic and Republican negotiators agreed last week to

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

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

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

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

under the bus, condemning the compromise and vowing to oppose

the bill creating the commission when it comes to a House

vote Wednesday.

Many Republicans do not want an impartial panel to remind

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

would examine how GOP lawmakers fed the election lies that

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

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

showdown over the 2020 presidential election. Republican

lawmakers who signed a spurious lawsuit seeking to overturn

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

the counting of electoral votes from several swing states

bear even more.

An honest proceeding would also require Mr. McCarthy to

testify under oath about his eyewitness experience of the

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

indifference. Mr. McCarthy has resisted offering the public a

frank accounting of his interactions with Mr. Trump,

including on a phone call during which Mr. McCarthy

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

concluded that whatever political benefits he receives from

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

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

should examine not only the Capitol invasion but other

politically motivated violence, such as the riots surrounding

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

draw a false equivalence between a historically unique attack

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

other Republicans are directly implicated, and crimes that

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

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

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

overturn a presidential election.

Mr. McCarthy knows Democrats will never endorse a panel

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

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

investigation at all. House Democrats should nevertheless

advance the compromise plan on Wednesday. Then the public

will see whether there are 10 Senate Republicans willing to

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

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

concerns about its structure that should be negotiable. But

if Senate Republicans capitulate to the calculations driving

Mr. McCarthy, House and Senate committees should use their

subpoena power to conduct their own investigations, even if

that means Democrats lead the inquiries without Republican

cooperation.

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

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

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

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

He asked for coequal subpoena power. He got it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam President, there are a lot of issues we are working through right now in the Senate.

Obviously, infrastructure is in conversation, and what is going to happen with some spending dealing with National Guard, Capitol Police.

We are working a lot on issues, like Afghan translators--trying to get those folks who walked alongside our soldiers for 20 years and risked their lives out of harm's way before the Taliban slaughters them.

We are engaged in a lot of issues. There are a lot of things happening behind the scenes. I thought it might be helpful to be able to give a couple of things I think we need to consider.

One is what is happening in the State Department right now. State Department engagement on the issues of passports is a major issue. It is a frustration for a lot of Americans. And I would tell you, a lot of Oklahomans that we deal with on a day-to-day basis on our team are very frustrated with trying to get their passport renewed. They didn't travel last year, obviously, with COVID, but now they want to be able to do some traveling in places where they can.

Good luck with that, as we have found. Right now, the backlog at the State Department is about 18 weeks. Today is the 29th of July. That means if you turn in your application for your passport today, you may get your passport December 2. Merry Christmas. If you plan on traveling Thanksgiving, you need to pay the extra fee to do an expedited delivery though we are at the end of July right now.

The problem?

The State Department still hasn't brought all of their staff back. They are not engaging. The rest of the country is open and operating, and the State Department is still studying how they are going to come back in, and millions of Americans are just waiting for their passport

I have spoken to leadership in the administration about this exact issue. In fact, I talked to some leadership who literally said to me: Oh, I wasn't aware there was a problem.

Listen, there is a problem, and it is not just in the State Department. It is in multiple other agencies. As America opens back up, trying to be able to manage all the issues with COVID, they are very aware of masks and vaccines and spacing.

But companies have figured out how to do this. For some reason, multiple agencies have not and it is causing real problems. It is not just problems in our economy with permitting and other things, some of the policies that have been put in place are causing real problems across our economy for just individuals.

We have an unemployment rate right now in June at 5.9 percent. We don't know what it will be for July, but it is getting better and better all the time. In Oklahoma, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. We have a lot of people employed because we turned off the extra unemployment benefits at the end of June and people came back to work. That is a good thing for them, for their families, for their kids, and for our economy. As we continue to be able to reengage, that is helpful.

But what we are seeing right now is inflation, consumer price increases like we have not seen in more than a decade. The Consumer Price Index increased by 5.4 percent. That is the most in 13 years.

We are watching the rapid rise in prices that Americans feel. It is a direct result of this $2 trillion bill that was done in March, where it paid people not to work, sent checks to individuals, and did lots of other benefits.

Many people, even economists from the Obama administration, said: Don't do this. It will cause inflation.

What have we seen?

In just the last 5 months: milk prices up, bread prices up, bacon prices up, price of gasoline up, price of wood up, price of building materials up, price of rental cars up, prices of used cars up, shortages in different supply chains--things we all identified in February and March and said we need to be attentive to.

If you dump $2 trillion into the economy, what does that do?

In the middle of this dialogue about inflation rising right now and everyone in America is seeing the rise in prices, there is a conversation about trillions of dollars more of spending--more of spending.

What effect do you think that will have? We have already seen the effect of what happened in March. What effect do you think it will have to add another, as is being forecast, $3.5 trillion more spending?

Sometimes we can't wrap our head around the issues of millions and billions and trillions because it all seems like numbers. There is a big difference between millions and billions and trillions. The best way I can describe this is, if you have a million seconds rather than a million dollars, a million seconds is about 11\1/2\ weeks. That is a lot. But a billion seconds is 31\1/2\ years. That is a big difference. Brace yourself because a billion seconds is 31\1/2\ years, but a trillion seconds is 31,688 years.

These are big numbers that are being thrown around and it is hard to wrap our head around how much spending is really going on, but the concept of throwing out $3.5 trillion is mind-boggling.

Let me give you one more. A trillion miles--if I were to say: How far is a trillion miles? A trillion miles is if you left Washington, DC, today and flew to the planet Pluto 334 times. From DC to our furthest planet 334 times, that is 1 trillion miles.

This is a lot of money that is being thrown around and has real consequences, knowing the debt and the borrowing and the tax changes, but how much things actually cost.

I am continuing to challenge my colleagues when they discuss all these big numbers and say: Let's throw all this money out there; it will have no consequence.

I will tell you, the people in Oklahoma feel what is going on. They may not know, but they feel it in the prices every day, what is going on in supply chains, and they are very aware. And the No. 1 question that I get asked when I am out and about in places in Oklahoma is: Where is all this money coming from?

It is a fair question.

There is this back-channel conversation right now happening on immigration as well. Right now, the news is focused on 10 million other things, and I literally have people in my State saying: Things must be going better at the border now because I don't hear about it much anymore.

I will smile at them and I say: I happen to be on that committee and be very engaged in the issues of border management and border security. Things are not getting better; they are getting worse.

March was the highest number of illegal crossings in 20 years. It was beaten in April; it was beaten in May; it was beaten in June. Current trend, that will be beaten in July. Just last week--just in 1 week, last week, the Rio Grande crossing--just that one sector in 1 week had 20,000 interdictions--in 1 week. At one time, they had 15,000 people who they were detaining.

So what is happening with that?

I keep hearing from the administration that we are going to take on the root causes. The root causes is a simple way to say we will deal with this later. Because if you want to talk about root causes, it is a statement saying that, basically, the problems are in Central America; we can't stop it.

Well, that is a nice note, except for here is a list of the countries that have crossed our border illegally just this year. It is over 100-- over 100 countries where individuals have illegally crossed the border.

So what about Brazil? What about Chile? What about Colombia? What about Guinea? What about Indonesia? What about Mauritania? Are we going to go after the root causes there? What about the Philippines, Indonesia, Romania, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates?

This is just a few of the people who have illegally crossed this year in big numbers.

Listen, this whole conversation about root causes is a distraction. We do need to be engaged in the Western Hemisphere. We do need to deal with our drug addiction in this country that causes the flow of drugs to be able to move through South America, Central America, Mexico into the United States. We do need to be aggressive in how we are handling cartels. But to somehow believe that if we poured enough money into the Northern Triangle that suddenly this would all end is false.

We are the greatest country in the world. The root cause of immigration into this country is the great power of the United States, both for freedom and for our economy. People from all over the world want to come here.

We have a million people a year who legally come to the United States--legally, a million--and folks who don't want to wait in line, who pay a cartel and move through Mexico to be able to get here literally from all over the world. If we do not enforce our borders, these numbers will continue to rise as they have every single month in this administration. Every month, the numbers get bigger.

We have got to get on top of this. I wish I could say the administration is taking it seriously. I wish I could say they have a plan. I wish I could say they have released out their studies that they said they were going to do. But they have not released out their studies. They have not released out their plans, and I continue to ask week, after week, after week.

The first hint that I got of what they planned to do came out in their budget. In their budget, they reduced funding for ICE, and they reduced the number of bed spaces for ICE. I was shocked. The numbers continue to skyrocket, and in their first release of what they plan to do on it, they asked for a 1,500-bed space reduction in ICE capacity for detention.

Now, honestly, when I got it, I thought: I can't believe they are putting this in print, but I already knew that it was going on. Why did I already know that it was going on? Because, as I have tracked the numbers all the time, I have watched the number of deportations and ICE detentions dramatically decrease. While some people are focused on the border, they lose track of the fact that not only is this administration not enforcing our southern border, they are not enforcing the interior of the country.

We have 6,000 ICE agents in the United States, 6,000 professional law enforcement-career folks who are in the country, arresting individuals who are illegally present in the country, with the first priority being criminal illegal aliens. That is their first priority, the safety and security of the United States. Of the 6,000 agents in the United States, in May, they did 3,000 total arrests--3,000 among 6,000 agents in a month. That is a record low because the administration changed the rules for ICE agents on who they could interdict.

The first big rule change they made is that ICE agents cannot arrest someone who is not legally present unless they get permission from regional leadership by name to arrest that individual. This means, if they go into a place to arrest someone and they encounter one person they received permission to actually arrest but also find three other criminal aliens there, they cannot detain or arrest them. They have to leave them and request by name later to go back and get them. And guess what. They are not there. Shocking. And it is not all criminal aliens. There are only certain criminal aliens they are now allowed to actually detain. That is a big shift from every previous--every previous-- administration.

Let me give an example that I actually gave to Secretary Mayorkas and asked specifically about some recent frustrating moments from our ICE agents.

Just a few days ago, ICE reached out on a previously deported alien by name. This person had been convicted of a sex assault of a minor under age 14. The alien was at large, and they asked permission to be able to go after this alien and to be able to do a street arrest. Remember, they had been deported before. They knew they were in the area. There were previous sex offender convictions. They were denied the ability to go after that person. They were told, no, they don't meet the standard.

Case No. 2. Another person who was previously deported had a previous conviction for indecency with a child, sexual contact. They were a registered sex offender. They believed they were in the area. They were asked if they could pursue an arrest. Regional leadership told them no, they could not.

Case No. 3--this just happened last week--is of a previously deported alien, twice. So this means they were for the third time in our country illegally. There were previous convictions for alien smuggling--that is, trafficking of people--theft, and illegal entry. They knew they were in the area. They asked if they could do the arrest. Regional leadership told them no.

I could go on and on.

ICE has a different set of rules now from what they had in the past. It is not just criminal aliens anymore; it is that they have to be really high criminal aliens. I could give you lists of people who have multiple DUI offenses, and ICE asked if they could detain them, and they were told no.

Listen, we have all said in this room that we should engage with criminal aliens and that criminal aliens should be deported. I don't know of a person in this room who hasn't said it. We stopped in May deporting criminal aliens. Are we going to do nothing about that?

If you don't believe me, call Secretary Mayorkas. He will send you a copy--that I have as well--of the interim guidance that was put out in May for ICE agents, limiting who they could deport and the process for deportation. I have asked him specifically: If someone goes to pick up a criminal alien and there are other aliens who are there, can they be picked up? The answer has been no.

We have a problem not just on our southern border but what is happening in our country and the issue of enforcement, and we would be wise if we would pay attention to this.

I am fully aware that there are many individuals in this body who do not like the southern border wall. That has been a topic of great debate in this room for several years. But is this body aware that in January of this year, when President Biden ``paused'' the border wall construction and said: I am going to spend 60 days studying it, that 60-day study is still not complete 200 days into the Presidency? He has still not completed the 60-day study.

On top of that, the pause of that construction, during that time period, we are still paying contractors to not do construction. So far this year, we have paid contractors $2 billion--billion with a ``b''-- not to construct the wall. Now, you may think it is a waste to construct the wall. I do not. But please tell me you at least believe it is a waste to not construct a wall and still pay contractors--to not construct a wall.

We are currently paying contractors $3 million a day to watch the materials that had been delivered by January 20 that were sitting on the ground--for steel, for fiber, for cameras, for lighting, for roads. We are paying $3 million a day to have them watch the materials on the ground to make sure they are not stolen--$3 million a day. That is a waste.

As people cross our border in record numbers, a new policy has been instituted on our southern border, called a notice to report. This, again, has never been done by any administration. A notice to report is when the line gets too long on the southern border, with people crossing the border, when they are trying to check everyone in--if the line gets too long, Border Patrol is instructed to grab the folks in the back of the line and give them a notice to report. That is a card telling them where ICE Agency offices are around the country, and they can just go ahead and go and turn themselves in at whatever ICE Agency they want to turn themselves in to anywhere in the country. So far, 50,000 people this year have been given one of those cards at

our southern border and told ``turn yourself in wherever you go in the country''--50,000.

My shock, as I am trying to track the number, is that 13 percent have actually done it. I was surprised the number was that high. But that means 87 percent of the people who we have handed a card to and said ``turn yourself in wherever you go in the country'' have not. Eighty- seven percent--we have no idea where they are of the 50,000 people who were released into the country because the line was too long at that moment

Listen, we can disagree about a lot of things on immigration, but handing people a card and saying to just travel anywhere you want to go in the country and turn yourself in when you get there--can we at least agree that is a bad idea? Can we at least agree that paying contractors $2 billion not to construct the wall is a bad idea? Can we at least agree that criminal aliens who had been previously convicted and are being picked up for another charge should at least be deported in the process? Can we at least agree, if you want to deal with the ``root causes'' in the Northern Triangle in Central America, that it does not deter the people from over 100 countries who have crossed our southern border this year illegally? There is a bigger problem. Can we at least agree that we should address this?

We have a great deal of work to be done. I would encourage all of us to get the facts, to get the details of what is really happening, and to understand that when over a million people have illegally crossed the border just this year, that we know of, that is a problem. It is a problem that hasn't been there in the past anywhere close to this kind of number, and we should address it in this body.

I have written letters. I have made phone calls. I have done reports. We have done research. I have sat down with Secretary Mayorkas. I have held nominees for DHS. I have done everything I can do to bring this issue to the forefront. Although others seem to ignore it, this is an issue that we should not ignore. National security is not something we should be flippant about, and not everyone crossing that border is just coming for a job. We should engage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in 1887, Lord Acton wrote a series of letters to Bishop Creighton, letters that would echo down across the centuries. Lord Acton wrote:

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and

King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that

they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the

other way against holders of power, increasing as the power

increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the

want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and

absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost

[exclusively] bad men, even when they exercise influence and

not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or

the certainty of corruption by authority.

Mr. President, those words were true in 1887, and they are true today. If you want to understand how power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, look no further than the other Chamber in the U.S. Capitol.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is drunk on power. The orders that Speaker Pelosi is issuing are abusive and unprecedented. Speaker Pelosi has decreed to Members of the House of Representatives, elected by the people, that: If you dare walk onto the floor of the House of Representatives without a mask, I, Speaker Pelosi, shall fine you.

Who the hell is she to be fining Members of the House?

But you know what? She is not done with that. She is not done with disrespecting our Constitution, disrespecting our democratic system that elects leaders. She goes further, to the good men and women who work here in the U.S. Capitol. We are surrounded by men and women who have chosen to come and work for the public good, and here is what Speaker Pelosi has decreed: If you dare walk in the hallway without a mask, I, Speaker Pelosi, will arrest you. I will put you in jail. I will fine you.

That is an absolute and complete abuse of power. She has no authority to disrespect the men and women who work here, to threaten you with physical harm, to threaten you with imprisonment.

And why does she do so?

She does so for one reason: political theater.

We are coming through a very difficult year and a half. Our Nation and the world has endured a pandemic. We have collectively taken extraordinary steps to defeat this pandemic, and we are coming out on the other side. We saw our Nation, we saw the private sector come together with remarkable inventiveness and produce vaccines in record times, and we have seen hundreds of millions of people getting those vaccines. We are in the process of beating this pandemic.

Not too long ago, the CDC recognized what was obvious then and is obvious now: vaccines work. And if you are vaccinated, you don't need to wear a mask.

The CDC issued that ruling, and I remember that day well. I had been vaccinated a couple of months before then, and after allowing the time for the vaccine to become effective, I decided I was going to stop wearing a mask. Why is that? Because vaccines work, because I believe in science. So I stopped wearing a mask. And there were a handful of Senators on the Senate floor who had been vaccinated, who stopped wearing masks.

Then the CDC, like the Oracle of Delphi, issued its proclamation. Hold on to your seats now. The CDC said that vaccines work, that if you are vaccinated, you don't need a mask. It was truly miraculous in this Chamber watching what occurred, as within days, every Senator in the Chamber began removing their masks, one after the other, after the other--not just Republicans; Democrats too. We all had our masks off.

Mr. President, I ask you, the day before the oracle of Fauci spoke, did vaccines not work? Did science not operate? No. It was obvious then and it was obvious on the day that the oracle of the CDC spoke that vaccines work, which is why every Democrat took their mask off.

But fast-forward to this week. The CDC issues the new proclamation. Apparently, according to the CDC, vaccines don't work anymore. That science thing? Inoperative. We have more important things to worry about, like politics.

As an aside, has there ever been an institution in American public life that has more discredited itself more rapidly than the CDC? A year and a half ago, the CDC was one of the most respected medical and scientific organizations on the face of the planet. Today, the CDC has willingly allowed itself to be politicized, to behave as an arm of the DNC, and their credibility is in tatters. It is a joke.

We have seen the emails from Dr. Fauci where he said in the midst of the pandemic: Masks don't work. They are not effective. People shouldn't use them.

Then we saw him say: Oh, no, no, no; masks work. But I lied to the American people when I said they didn't

work because I didn't want them to wear masks because I wanted first responders to get them.

Now, pause for a second and think, what the heck is a scientific leader doing lying to the American people supposedly for our own good? The willingness to twist facts to meet political expediency has been stunning.

The CDC's ruling this week is not accompanied by any data. They did not roll out studies. They did not roll out facts. They did not say suddenly vaccines aren't working. Instead, they just said: Trust us. We have double-super-secret studies that we are not going to tell you based on double-secret-super data that we are not going to show you, but trust us because we behave like political hacks and obey us anyway.

By the way, the CDC plays an interesting little game. The CDC says: These are recommendations. These are just recommendations.

Then their faithful little foot soldiers, the Democratic officeholders, come in and make those recommendations mandates. And there is no one more willing to do so than Speaker Pelosi. And then, by the way, the local government Democrats who mandate ``you must obey the CDC,'' they throw their hands up and say: Hey, we are just following the CDC. And the CDC says: Hey, we are just making recommendations. And no one is accountable for anything.

This makes no sense.

One of the things the CDC rolled out this week is an edict that in schools, everybody must be masked--child, adult. It doesn't matter if you are vaccinated; it doesn't matter; you must wear a mask. Why? Who knows? It is not based on science, not based on medicine.

This virus has been unusual. We have seen that in certain populations, COVID-19 can be profoundly deadly. If you are very elderly, if you have serious comorbidities, this virus can and has been deadly. But we have also seen among children that the odds of children getting seriously ill from COVID-19 are extremely low. We have seen that children have not proven to be a meaningful vector in the spread of this disease. The science doesn't support special rules for schools, but do you know what does? Politics. Because the teachers union bosses came to the CDC and said: We want this rule in place. And the partisan enforcers at the CDC said: Ma'am, yes, ma'am, we will issue the order demanded by the union bosses.

Mr. President, give me any plausible argument that that is science, that that is medicine, that that is anything but rank politics. If a Democratic politician wants to say ``We are going to obey the union bosses,'' fine; that is their prerogative to do so. They can be held accountable by the voters. But the CDC is supposed to be following science. This is an abuse of power.

Let me point out my view. I think we should not have government mandates concerning COVID-19. There should be no vaccine mandates. Joe Biden wants to mandate Federal employees must get the vaccine. Who the heck is the Federal Government to tell people they must stick a needle in their arm and inject themselves with a vaccine? We should have no vaccine mandates. We should have no mask mandates. We should have no vaccine passports.

Let me be clear. I am someone who believes in vaccines. I have been vaccinated. Heidi has been vaccinated. My parents have been vaccinated. Heidi's parents have been vaccinated. But I also believe in individual choice. I believe in freedom. I believe in responsibility. It is your choice if you want to get vaccinated. It is not some drunk-on-power Democrat in Washington's choice to force you to do it.

Doesn't anyone in the Democratic Party believe in medical autonomy? Doesn't anyone in the Democratic Party believe in medical privacy, or are you so willing to exert power that it doesn't matter what the people say?

You know, one of the great ironies of the CDC's order: It will decrease the rate of vaccination in the United States. The CDC is telling America: Hey, this vaccine stuff doesn't work very well because, you know, if you get a vaccine, it doesn't matter; you have to put the same mask on, and you have to behave exactly the same. When the CDC rightly said ``If you are vaccinated, take your mask off,'' it encouraged people to get vaccinated. Hey, I want to take my mask off. Hey, I want to live my life. I want to go back to doing things that I like to do

Let me point out one particularly ridiculous argument. This week, one of the commentators on one of the news networks said--I am paraphrasing here, but I am paraphrasing pretty closely--that anyone who isn't vaccinated is arrogant and rude and inconsiderate.

I want to point out how imbecilic that argument is. So let's go back to this thing called science, which actually works. So here is the science: If you have been vaccinated, the odds of your getting COVID-19 are exceptionally low. Depending on which vaccine you got, the percentages vary but let's say on the order of 3 to 5 percent. Even if you do get COVID-19, the odds of your getting a serious case of COVID- 19, a case of COVID-19 resulting in hospitalization or death, are extremely low. This vaccine has been very, very successful.

If you understand that basic fact, then the next fact follows from it. If someone is unvaccinated and has COVID, they are little to no threat to someone who is vaccinated. If you have gotten your vaccine, you ought to be fine. The odds are very low that you are in jeopardy.

Now, could someone who is unvaccinated give COVID to someone else who is unvaccinated? Absolutely. That is why we are encouraging people to get vaccinated. But, you know what, the person who is unvaccinated--it is their damn choice. We don't have to be a nanny state, making decisions for everybody else.

I have to tell you, in my family, my dad didn't want to get vaccinated. My father, like the Presiding Officer right now, is a pastor. My dad is 82.

When I got vaccinated, I called him and said: Dad, I want you to get vaccinated.

He said: No, I don't want to. I don't trust it. It is new. I don't know. I don't want to.

I spent about a month trying to convince my dad to get vaccinated. My father can be pretty stubborn. I know that is hard to believe. For those of you who know my dad, you know exactly that is the case.

But, ultimately, I told my dad--I said: Look, you have been largely staying home during this pandemic. You want to get out. You want to be preaching in churches again. You want to be traveling. You want to be with people. Get the vaccine, and you will have the freedom to go do that.

You know what. He did, and he did. He is now back in the pulpit. He is back preaching. He has freedom again. That was his choice.

Why don't Democrats believe in individual choice anymore? Why do Democrats believe they can abuse power?

And let me be clear. Nancy Pelosi is telling someone who is an employee of the House: If you are vaccinated and you don't wear your mask--she will arrest you and throw you in jail.

How dare she? That is an abuse of power. And I will tell you, the American people are watching this political theater play out in Washington, and they understand what is coming next. They understand the same CDC that said, even though there is no science to back it up, even though there is no data to back it up, because the teachers union bosses want masks for everyone in schools, we will decree it. They understand the risk of what is coming next is that authoritarian status Democrats will order more shutdowns. We will order businesses shut down. We will order schools shut down. We will order churches shut down.

As we look at the past year and a half, few things are clearer than that the shutdowns were a catastrophic mistake. The politicians who ordered the shutdowns committed a catastrophic mistake. They destroyed millions of small businesses--restaurants, bars, stores gone out of business.

You look at great cities like New York City that became practically a wasteland. You look at something like Broadway. You think of all the actors and actresses, all of the writers and musicians, all of the sound and lighting engineers, all the carpenters, everyone who worked on Broadway--with a dictatorial flick of a pen, their jobs were destroyed. The American people are watching Democrats and recognize they are ready to do that again.

For people who go to church, we have seen Democratic officeholders discriminate against churches and say: Worshipping God in church is a public

health menace. We have all seen the hypocrisy of the so-called experts who say: If you go outside and march and chant ``Black lives matter,'' zero risk of COVID transmission. Perfectly safe. If you go to church and sing ``Hallelujah,'' oh my God, everyone is going to die. People understand the hypocrisy of that.

This virus isn't political. I recognize perhaps you could tongue-in- cheek make an argument that since it originated in Wuhan, China, maybe it is a Communist. But the last I checked, viruses don't have political views. Do you know who does have political views? Politicians who are interested in their own power and want to convey a narrative regardless of the facts.

What Speaker Pelosi is doing is wrong. What the CDC is doing-- corrupting science with politics--is wrong. And it is time for the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House to stand on the side of the American people, to stand on the side of freedom, and to say: It is your choice to go to work, to go to school, to go to church, to live your life free of Lord Acton's abuse of absolute power.

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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