Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 848 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

general leave

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

Mr. Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 848. The rule provides for consideration of the resolution accompanying House Report 117-216, under a closed rule if the report is called up by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and an opponent.

Mr. Speaker, after producing 9,000 pages of documents that he conceded to be nonprivileged in any way; after saying he would comply with the subpoena to appear before the January 6th committee on December 8; after negotiating and rendering preliminary cooperation with the January 6th committee, Mark Meadows' book came out with tons of startling and eye-popping revelations about January 6th and the role that then-President Donald Trump played.

Ex-President Trump exploded and called Mr. Meadows' book fake news. Amazingly, Mr. Meadows agreed that his book was fake news, and then he suddenly pulled the plug on his agreement to testify in formal deposition before our committee on December 8.

Instead, he went to court and alleged that our committee has no valid legislative purpose.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Meadows' sudden vanishing act is plainly a delay tactic designed to run out the clock on one of the most important investigations in the history of the United States of America. If we don't have a legislative purpose in investigating the most sweeping, violent attack on the U.S. Capitol since the War of 1812, and the most serious and most dangerous threat to American constitutional democracy since the Civil War, then we really don't have a legislative purpose for anything we do here.

If this investigation into a dangerous assault on the American Government is not necessary and proper under our Constitution, then nothing is. Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution gives Congress of the United States the power to provide for: calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

Obviously, we have a legislative purpose in what we are doing to investigate an attack on this building, on this Chamber where more than 140 of our officers were wounded and injured, hospitalized, people came back with broken necks, broken jaws, broken vertebrae, broken arms, broken legs, traumatic brain injuries, and to this day, continue to suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome.

The counting of electoral college votes was interrupted for the very first time in American history for several hours. This was the most serious, destabilizing, domestic threat to American constitutional democracy that any of us have seen in our lifetimes.

Now, the committee has bent over backwards to accommodate Mr. Meadows' multiple requests. It is now clear he has no intention of complying with the subpoena, even when his testimony could have no theoretical connection to an executive privilege claim. This is the key point.

He is categorically refusing to show up to testify about 9,000 pages of documents that he has already turned over to the committee and for which he has thus nullified any hypothetical assertions of executive privilege by President Biden, or a former President. He is refusing to testify about statements that he made in his book that are now all over the country, published last week, and that he has repeated in the media about what took place on January 6.

He is willing to talk about it in his book. He is willing to talk about it in public, but he is unwilling to undergo the questioning of our committee despite having been subpoenaed to do so in deposition.

This is another category of statements which has nothing to do with executive privilege because it has already been completely waived, completely obviated, and completely nullified by his own actions.

This witness, Mr. Speaker, must testify. He must come and render truthful, honest, and complete testimony like 300 other witnesses before him have done, either voluntarily and patriotically, as the vast majority have done, or at least under compulsion of a legal subpoena.

The Supreme Court has been perfectly clear about that. We have the same authority to ask for people's testimony that a court does in pursuit of our official constitutional duties. And if anyone we have called as a witness knows in his bones that he must testify before this committee, it is Mr. Meadows himself, a former member of this body who repeatedly through his career in Congress insisted that high-ranking executive branch officials must comply with congressional demands for information and congressional subpoenas for their testimony.

By the way, you don't get to choose and say: Well, I will send you my documents, but I am not going to testify. That is not how going before Congress works or going before a court works.

In the last administration, multiple times, Mr. Meadows found high- ranking officials hiding information from Congress, withholding relevant documents, or ``even outright ignoring congressional subpoenas.''

And here is what he had to say about that: ``This level of conduct, paired with the failure to even feign an interest in transparency, is reprehensible. And whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, this kind of obstruction is wrong, period.

``For 9 months we've warned them consequences were coming, and for 9 months we've heard the same excuses backed up by the same unacceptable conduct. Time is up and the consequences are here.''

We have multiple statements by Mr. Meadows like that, who was a distinguished member of the Oversight and Reform Committee. He, of all Members, continually insisted that people and high-ranking government officials respect the authority of Congress to do its job.

Our investigative powers are implicit in, and intertwined with our powers to legislate as the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized.

The Meadows' lawsuit against individual members of this committee is extremely dubious in light of the Speech or Debate Clause and multiple other constitutional roadblocks, and its substantive allegations are frivolous, such as the central absurd claim that Congress has no legitimate purpose in investigating and reporting to the American people on a violent attack on our Capitol, our Presidential election, and on the peaceful transfer of power.

We must hold him in contempt for his refusal to participate in these proceedings, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

First of all, on the matter of the phone records, what has been subpoenaed is simply the metadata establishing where the phone calls were going amongst different parties that were involved in the January 6 insurrection and the attempted political coup against Vice President Pence, but not the actual communications themselves. There has not been a single word that has been subpoenaed from the telephone companies of the actual conversations that took place.

All of that, in any event, is an irrelevant distraction. Let's be very clear about what is going on here, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Meadows began to cooperate. He turned over 9,000 documents of extraordinary relevance to this investigation. We were getting exactly what we wanted, up until the point at which he pulled the plug on his participation.

Look at some of the texts which we released over the last 24 hours that came in as part of his discovery with the committee. This is from some Republican lawmakers and others:

``We are under siege up here at the Capitol,'' was one text he received.

``They have breached the Capitol.''

``Mark, protesters are literally storming the Capitol. Breaking windows on doors. Rushing in. Is Trump going to say something?''

``There's an armed standoff at the House Chamber door.''

``We are all helpless.''

Here is what came in from some members of the media that Mr. Meadows turned over to the committee.

Laura Ingraham: ``Mark, the President needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy.''

Brian Kilmeade sent this to Mark Meadows: ``Please get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished.''

Here is Sean Hannity: ``Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol.''

Trump family members also were texting, according to the materials turned over by Mark Meadows. Donald Trump, Jr.: ``He's got to condemn this'' excrement ``ASAP. The Capitol Police tweet is not enough.'' Meadows responding: ``I'm pushing it hard. I agree.'' Donald Trump, Jr.: We need an Oval Office address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.''

Mr. Speaker, all of these texts and hundreds more like them lead to hundreds of questions that we have about the sequence of events on January 6: Who did what in response to different pleas from lawmakers, Democrat and Republican alike? Who did what in response to these pleas coming in from members of the media and from members of the Trump family? What was the sequence of events? How was the National Guard involved? How did this interact with other parts of the Federal Government?

Then Mr. Meadows, though, did a U-turn when Donald Trump called his book ``fake news.'' Meadows decided to agree with him and hurriedly said it was fake news and then said he would not appear on December 8, a date, by the way, which had been postponed from two other dates to testify because we wanted to accommodate his schedule and the schedule of his lawyer. But now he decides to go completely cold.

They are left in a completely untenable posture legally because he is refusing to testify about things that he has already conceded there is no privilege covering. He has said: None of this is privileged. I am turning it over to you.

We want to ask him questions about it, and now, suddenly, he runs back to the idea that there is some privilege, although one can see his eroding faith in that argument as the D.C. Circuit rejected the claims of executive privilege unanimously in Trump v. Thompson.

So now that is why he is saying we have no legitimate legislative purpose, which is perfectly absurd. If we don't have a legislative purpose in defending our own institution, our own Constitution, our own government, then we have no legislative purposes here at all if we can't even have an investigation into an attack that goes to the very survival of our form of government.

Mr. Speaker, Mark Meadows has to testify. He has to come in like 300 American citizens have patriotically and lawfully done. What makes him special? The fact that he knows a former President of the United States? I am afraid not.

In Jones v. Clinton, a case that my colleagues applauded on the other side of the aisle, the Supreme Court held that even a sitting President of the United States is not immune to civil actions, even a sitting President.

We don't have an office of former President. When you are no longer President of the United States, under our Constitution, you are a citizen like everybody else. You can't wave a magic wand over your friends and say that they don't have to comply with lawful subpoenas.

So this witness is in contempt of our committee and the United States Congress.

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

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

I appreciate, of course, the temptation to just change the subject and talk about something completely different because there are no arguments left on their side.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Trump v. Bennie Thompson case, in an opinion of more than 50 pages, reviewed all the arguments on both sides about executive privilege and said executive privilege is a claim which, of course, belongs primarily and principally to the existing President of the United States, not to a former President of the United States. To the extent that a former President of the United States can raise it, the presumption is that the people in our constitutional democracy have a right to all the information they seek in order to govern themselves.

That is what the investigative power of Congress is about. We have a right to obtain the information we need in order to legislate. So the presumption is that we get it. That can only be overcome if a sitting President--or in perhaps some exceptional cases, a former President-- demonstrates there is some compelling need that would override the fundamental right of the people to get the information we want.

The D.C. Circuit panel found unanimously that not only had they not shown there was a compelling need on Donald Trump's team, they didn't even identify a potentially compelling need. Of course, there isn't one. Why? The Supreme Court has already found that executive privilege does not cover criminal activity; much less could executive privilege cover insurrectionary activity or activity designed to promote an insurrection or a coup against the United States of America.

So I welcome my colleagues talking about anything else because it simply demonstrates their abandonment of the executive privilege argument, an argument also that has been abandoned by Mr. Meadows himself, who voluntarily turned over 9,000 pages worth of documents to our committee, thereby saying there was no privilege at all.

But now he is refusing to testify about it, apparently because of Donald Trump's explosive reaction to the publication of Mark Meadows' book. I am sorry, that is not a constitutional defense to being called to testify before Congress. You can't say a former President is mad at me and wants to wave a magic wand so I don't have to testify. That doesn't work in our system of government.

Mr. Meadows must come and testify, like hundreds of people have come to testify before our committee about this brutal attack on our system of government.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

I thank the gentlewoman for her very insightful remarks. The committee has referred often to the passage that the gentlewoman identifies by the Supreme Court saying that a subpoena to come and testify is not an invitation to a game of hare and hounds. That is a little old-fashioned. Basically, the court is saying it is not a game of hide-and-seek or cat-and-mouse.

You are told to come and testify, and you must. That is what the vast majority of people have been doing in our investigation and the vast majority of Americans do all across the land when they are subpoenaed to come to court. It seems like a tiny handful of people who think that somehow they are above the law because they know a former President of the United States.

I am sorry, that is just not how our legal system works. We have no kings here, as Judge Chutkan emphasized at the district court in rejecting Donald Trump's claims against our committee. We have no kings here. Everyone is subject to the law. We have no nobles. We have no lords. Congress cannot award titles of nobility here. We are all equals, and we are all subject to the law. It is a crime in the District of Columbia not to comply with a subpoena, punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $100,000 fine. Very serious business. Now, if you think you have got some kind of legal privilege against testifying, like the marital privilege or the priest-penitent privilege or the doctor-patient privilege or the executive privilege, you come, you show up, you testify, and you invoke it as to a specific question.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why this case is overwhelmingly easy, we would argue 100 percent easy, is because we are talking about testimony by Mr. Meadows that he has been subpoenaed to give relating to 9,000 documents that he has already admitted are not privileged by the executive privilege or the Fifth Amendment or anything else. He has said, here, take them. This is evidence about what happened. And rightfully so did he do that.

I will express my personal disappointment that Donald Trump's explosive rage about the publication of Mr. Meadows' book occasioned some kind of change in his attitude about it, but regardless of his subjective attitude, he has a legal obligation to show up and to answer the questions of this committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to emphasize that in his distinguished service in this Chamber, Mr. Meadows would never tolerate an executive official simply deciding to blow off a subpoena of the U.S. Congress. He said, ``Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, this kind of obstruction is wrong, period.''

He repeatedly complained about intransigence and delays by the executive branch. So I think he understands exactly why this is a matter of such gravity to our body.

Now, as I was saying, as a member, not just of the Rules Committee but also of the January 6th Select Committee, we have seen overwhelming participation and cooperation by the people we have called. Most people are doing their legal duty and their civic and patriotic duty by coming forward and voluntarily saying, here is what I know, and here is the information I have got to help you put together a report for the American people.

It just seems as we have gotten closer and closer to Donald Trump, that is where we are running into the obstructionism, as from Steve Bannon, as from Jeffrey Clark. And now we have got this problem we are in with Mark

Meadows, who had been on the path of cooperation, had turned over these thousands of documents, and now he is in the very awkward position of saying he is not going to testify about thousands of documents that he already turned over to us, which demonstrate how radically dangerous that day, in fact, was.

Let me just read a few more of the texts that Mr. Meadows disclosed to our committee: One text said, ``We are under siege here at the Capitol.'' That came to him on January 6.

Another, ``They have breached the Capitol.''

``Mark, protesters are literally storming the Capitol. Breaking windows on doors. Rushing in. Is Trump going to say something?''

``We are all helpless.''

Dozens of texts, including from Trump administration officials, urged immediate action by the President, ``POTUS has to come out firmly and tell the protesters to dissipate. Someone is going to get killed.''

And, of course, several people died on that day and within days of the attack on January 6.

In another, ``Mark, he needs to stop this now.''

A third in all caps, ``TELL THEM TO GO HOME.''

A fourth, and I quote, ``POTUS needs to calm this''--expletive deleted, excrement--``down.''

Multiple FOX News hosts themselves knew the President needed to act immediately. They texted Mr. Meadows. He turned over those texts to us. ``Mark, President needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home. This is hurting all of us. He is destroying his legacy,'' wrote Laura Ingraham.

Brian Kilmeade texted, ``Please get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished.''

Sean Hannity urged by text, ``Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol.'' And so on.

We need to find out what actions were taken in response to all of those entreaties from Members of Congress, from members of the media, from members of Trump's own family, what sequence of events took place afterwards.

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

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

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

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

The gentlewoman invokes the oath of office. Former President Trump swore an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution, and we have all of these tweets which clearly indicate he wasn't doing that.

H. Res. 503 authorizes and obligates our committee to get to the particulars and details of what took place on January 6, what were the causes behind it, and what do we need to do to defend ourselves in the future against these kinds of attacks on our election process, on the peaceful transfer of power, and on the workings of Congress.

That is what we are doing.

And with their January 6 case collapsing all around them, my colleagues now head for the border in their rhetoric, and I don't blame them for doing that. But they are not going to fool the American people. People understand exactly what is happening here.

The prior speaker said that it is a crime not to show up for a subpoena, and he said you know who does that, undocumented aliens. Well, then it is undocumented aliens, Steve Bannon, and Mark Meadows who are violating the law.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of people have come forward to testify about the violent and dangerous events of January 6, and there are just a handful of people, like Mr. Bannon and Mr. Meadows, who somehow think they are above the law.

We are not a banana republic because we hold everybody to equality under the law. And we are not communists, as the gentlewoman from Georgia suggested. Those are just the friends of the former President, who you lionize, like the dictator of North Korea, who he loves, and Vladimir Putin, who said that the greatest tragedy of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. So, those are your friends. Don't put them on our side.

They are saying that the Select Committee on the January 6th Attack is out to persecute and bankrupt their opponents. On the contrary, we are out to write a report, under H. Res. 503, to the American people about the most violent, sweeping, and dangerous attack on the Republic since the Civil War or the War of 1812.

Mr. Bannon is raising money on it. Far from bankrupting Mr. Bannon, he is trying to get rich on it. And Mark Meadows has written a book where he tells all the stories he wants about January 6. It is just that he doesn't want to face the rule of law and the questions of this bipartisan committee, which is making tremendous progress in terms of getting the truth of what happened on that day.

Mr. Speaker, I recommend to all of my colleagues who invoked the rule of law today that they read the D.C. Circuit Court opinion, which obliterates every single argument that they have made about executive privilege. It is basically gone now because the way the law works is the people have a right to get the information we want unless there is a compelling interest on the other side. They haven't even pretended to invoke a compelling interest.

What is the compelling interest in being able to prepare an insurrection, a coup against the government? Is that what we want to establish a precedent for, that outgoing Presidents can try to organize an insurrection against the Vice President and encourage people who go out and stage a riot against the Vice President of the United States and the Congress? I don't think so.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of the speakers said it was absence of legislative purpose. This is the central purpose of our government, to make the government survive and to go out and serve the people. That is what this committee is doing.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, like 300 other witnesses called to meet with the January 6 committee and our staff, Mark Meadows was, indeed, cooperating with our committee and voluntarily released thousands of pages of admittedly unprivileged documents, and then something changed. His book came out and apparently embarrassed Donald Trump.

After ex-President Trump exploded and called the book fake news, Meadows performed a U-turn and suddenly refused to appear at the December 8 deposition that he had previously agreed to. He called his own book fake news, which is a pretty devastating review to render on your own book, and he brought a lawsuit against the committee alleging--check this out--that we have no legislative purpose.

Meadows' sudden vanishing act cannot vaporize the Article I legislative power of our committee to investigate the massive assault on American democracy that took place on January 6. If the January 6 committee has no legislative purpose, then none of our committees do, for the first rule of democratic government is self-preservation.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 gives us the power to suppress insurrections and repel invasions against the Union, and this we will do by investigating and reporting on the most dangerous political violence ever unleashed against the Capitol by a domestic enemy.

We have hundreds of questions. Yes, we do. The fact that Donald Trump, who gave Mr. Meadows a positive blurb for his book, apparently changed his mind about the book doesn't mean that Mr. Meadows can now violate a congressional subpoena, something that Meadows frequently insisted upon himself as a leading member of the House Oversight Committee, and he knows it. And we have pages and pages of his insisting upon the central importance of honoring the subpoenas of Congress.

We have hundreds of questions for Mr. Meadows about information he has already admitted is not privileged in any way at all by the executive privilege, the Fifth Amendment, or anything else.

Here is one of them: How did the following text from a House lawmaker influence Trump's plans to overthrow Joe Biden's electoral college majority of 306 to 232 after Joe Biden beat Donald Trump?

Here is what that lawmaker wrote him. On November 4, a Member of this body wrote to Meadows: Here is an aggressive strategy--one day after the election--why can't the States of Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and other Republican-controlled State houses declare this is BS where conflicts in election not called that night and just send their own electors to vote and have it go to the SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States.

How did this text influence the planning of Mark Meadows and Donald Trump to try to destroy the lawful electoral college majority that had been established by the people of the United States and the States for Joe Biden?

Those are the kind of questions that we have a right to ask Mark Meadows. He does not have any special privilege above any other citizen to get out of his civic responsibility.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of H.R. 5314, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, spelling, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Madam Speaker, is there a high school or a workplace in America that would do nothing if a student or a worker posted violently threatening material against a fellow student or a colleague? Please show it to me, if so.

Last month, a high school student in Michigan made threatening statements about a specific classmate. He was arrested.

In Boulder, Colorado, several high school students were expelled for posting violently threatening material online.

Last month, in Chicago, a firefighter was fired for his threatening social media posts, including a cartoon of someone running someone else over in a car.

A woman in Pennsylvania who made violent threats against a colleague on Facebook was fired, and the State court found she was ineligible for unemployment compensation because her violently threatening speech online constituted willful misconduct.

It is remarkable to me, Madam Speaker, that we have colleagues who think we should do nothing in the face of a Member of the United States House of Representatives who posts an animated cartoon video of him killing a colleague.

Congressman Gosar is 62. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is 32.

Madam Speaker, today, Donald Trump said the insurrection took place on November 3. No, Mr. Trump. I am sorry. That is what we call an election in America; an election that was validated by more than 60 Federal or State courts, including before eight judges nominated to the bench by President Trump himself, and all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, all of them rejecting every claim of electoral fraud and corruption that was advanced.

We know an insurrection when we see one in this body, because we lived through one. Under the banner of this continuing and deranged big lie, the Stop the Steal movement brought down a violent insurrection against this Congress in an attempted coup against Vice President Mike Pence. They interrupted the counting of electoral college votes for the first time in American history. They caused the worst attack on Congress since the War of 1812; and they injured and wounded more than 140 police officers, Capitol Police officers, Metropolitan Police Department officers, and others, breaking their noses, breaking their necks, breaking their vertebrae, breaking their arms, breaking their legs, breaking their hearts and their spirits.

We are investigating the attack on American democracy because we are Americans. We are investigating the attack on Congress by domestic enemies of our Constitution because we are sworn to do so by our oaths of office.

But now, the big lie has become a big coverup. After being impeached twice by the House, after losing in 61 different courts, after seeing a 57-43 vote against him in the U.S. Senate, in the most sweeping bipartisan Senate Presidential conviction vote in American history, Trump now tries to get his followers, like Steve Bannon, not to testify here and not to turn over evidence that they have about this vicious assault on American democracy.

In America, when you are subpoenaed to testify in court or in Congress, you show up, period. You can invoke your Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to specific questions if you think you committed a crime. You can claim executive privilege to specific questions if you think you are President of the United States. But you cannot blow off a subpoena in America. You cannot sit on your couch and defy the people's representatives in Congress.

So we must enforce the rule of law here, my colleagues. We must do it. If you act deliberately, with sneering, cavalier contempt for the American people and their representatives, we will hold you in contempt. We will get to the truth of the violent assault on America.

Mr. Speaker, the women of Texas are citizens of the United States, but they are being treated like outlaws by their own legislature.

Under the Texas law, any person, including murderers, serial rapists, sexual harassers, January 6 insurrectionists, or Texas State legislators themselves, can sue doctors, nurses, mothers, fathers, medical personnel, simply for helping a woman in Texas exercise her constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey for $10,000.

You want to give $10,000 to a total stranger for helping your daughter through a personal crisis caused by a rape? Move to Texas.

You want to join the GOP in turning America into a nation of theocratic busybodies and vigilante bounty hunters policing other people's families? Go right ahead.

But for me, I am standing with the Constitution of the United States. I am voting for the Women's Health Protection Act, and I am proud that we are passing it today.

Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the Women's Health Protection Act.

Today in Texas a law has been put into place that transforms essentially everyone in the country into potential bounty hunters who can go and collect $10,000 by reporting on doctors, nurses, or family members who helped a woman exercise her constitutional right to seek an abortion in consultation with her physician.

There is not even an exception for rape and incest under the draconian Texas anti-abortion law. A 15-year-old girl could be raped by her farther or her uncle and then have her mother go and take her to get an abortion, and the rapist--her father or uncle--could sue them for $10,000. Or anybody could sue them for $10,000.

We need to codify Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey to guarantee the constitutional rights of women against the new onslaught against reproductive freedom and women's healthcare in the United States.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the American Kidney Fund (AKF) for its outstanding leadership in the fight against kidney disease. AKF is located in Rockville, in Maryland's 8th District, and I am proud to be AKF's Representative in Congress. This year marks the organization's 50th anniversary and I invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing AKF's five decades of work.

AKF was founded in 1971 by a group of people who came together to help pay for a neighbor's lifesaving dialysis treatment, and in the 50 years since, AKF has become a well-known and widely-respected charitable organization that is dedicated to meeting the needs of people affected by kidney disease. AKF is the nation's leading independent nonprofit advocating on behalf of the 37 million Americans with kidney disease. AKF's vision is a world without kidney disease-- but until then, AKF will do everything in its power to ensure that every kidney patient has access to health care, and that every person at risk for kidney disease has the knowledge and resources to help prevent it.

AKF notes that it touches more lives than any other kidney organization, with programs of prevention, early detection, and direct financial assistance that enable the nation's low-income dialysis and transplant patients to access lifesaving medical care, disease management support, clinical research, innovation and advocacy resources. The American Kidney Fund plays a leading role in educating and informing the American people about kidney disease, raising public awareness about the fact that many cases of kidney disease are preventable, and spreading the message that when it is detected early, kidney disease can often be managed and its progression slowed.

Recognizing that advanced kidney disease disproportionately affects minority populations, AKF and its 16,000 Ambassadors have been longtime advocates for these patients and their communities. One area of focus for the organization has been to educate the public about the importance of increasing the participation of minority populations in clinical trials, which are critical to developing better treatments for conditions like kidney disease. Minority populations have historically been underrepresented in these trials, and AKF is dedicated to changing that.

AKF also assists low-income dialysis patients and people who have recently received a kidney transplant, providing financial assistance through Safety Net Grants, Disaster Relief Grants, Health Insurance Premium Program Grants and Coronavirus Emergency Grants. AKF has worked to address longstanding health disparities in the United States and advance health equity so that all of us are as healthy as possible.

Madam Speaker, on the occasion of AKF's 50th anniversary, I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the American Kidney Fund's unsurpassed leadership in the fight to end kidney disease.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Robert ``Renny'' Cushing, who has led a remarkable life dedicated to social activism and public service. His selfless determination to secure equitable social change for the communities he has served is a true testament to our country's civic spirit.

His journey began at the young age of 15 while advocating alongside civil rights activist Allard Lowenstein to end the Vietnam War and to lower the voting age nationwide. A year later, he left Hampton, New Hampshire with only $40 in his pocket and an itch to see the world. Renny soon traveled thousands of miles and worked numerous blue-collar jobs. He picked oranges in Florida, plucked grapes in the San Joaquin Valley of California, collected waste in Atlanta and harvested tobacco in Mexico. After a few years of travelling, he decided to bring all the knowledge he acquired about people and life back home.

When he returned to Hampton, Renny co-founded the Clamshell Alliance, a group that would protest the construction of a nuclear station that individuals and families throughout his community voted against. He also later co-founded the Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights, an international non-government organization of family members of murder victims fearlessly dedicated to opposing the death penalty. Renny, whose father was tragically murdered, spent decades advocating for the abolishment of New Hampshire's death penalty law, which the state did repeal in 2019.

He officially began his career as a legislator in 1986, after winning his first election as a Representative of the New Hampshire State House. Following multiple non-consecutive terms, Renny was nominated as the Democratic Leader of the New Hampshire State House of Representatives in 2020. While serving as the Democratic Leader, Renny received a heartbreaking stage four prostate cancer diagnosis after he was hospitalized with acute kidney failure.

Renny did not allow this devastating news to deter his commitment to serving others. Now the Democratic Minority Leader, Renny continues to serve in the New Hampshire State House where he has fought to ensure remote access to House hearings for disabled legislators, expand availability of medical marijuana for cancer patients and ensure the removal of harmful PFAS chemicals in nearby wells.

Renny has devoted his life to the betterment of our nation and our communities and the uplifting of all our people. His unwavering commitment and tenacious attitude even in the toughest of times exemplify what it means to be a patriotic American.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to recognize the important accomplishments of Robert ``Renny'' Cushing, and I hope this Chamber will join me in celebrating his remarkable life and career.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for her great leadership on this.

Madam Speaker, it is one thing to remember the Nation's Confederate traitors. It is another thing to glorify them. It is time to stop glorifying white supremacy in black robes and Confederate traitors who defected from the Union and took up arms against the United States.

Now, I represent Frederick County, Maryland, where Justice Taney lived. The city of Frederick, 5 years ago, took down their statue of the man who wrote the Dred Scott opinion, which found that an African American could never be a citizen within the meaning of Article III of the Constitution, and in which he wrote: ``Blacks have no rights which the White man is bound to respect.''

In the name of original intent, Justice Taney transformed our Constitution into a White man's compact. He disgraced the Supreme Court. It would take the Civil War, the Reconstruction amendments, and the civil rights movement to dismantle the white supremacist constitution.

Now we are going to replace him with a great Marylander, who has stood the test of time, Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was one of the architects of the legal strategy to dismantle Jim Crow and to replace Plessy v. Ferguson.

Madam Speaker, Justice Marshall argued the White primary line of cases: Smith v. Allwright and Terry v. Adams. He argued Brown v. Board of Education. He became the first African-American Supreme Court Justice.

As for all the other Federal officeholders who took an oath to support our Constitution but then defected to the Confederacy and waged insurrection and rebellion against the United States, they were banned by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from ever serving in public office again, at the Federal level, at the State level, or at the local level.

Why should they occupy a position of honor and reverence in this building?

Madam Speaker, I thank Chair Maloney for her wonderful leadership of the Oversight Committee.

I rise in support of H.R. 2662, the Inspector General Independence and Empowerment Act.

The inspectors general are a remarkable innovation in American Government that have saved us untold billions of dollars and checked the corrupt abuse of power by people controlling Federal departments. They are essential to our ability to legislate as the Article I branch and to do meaningful oversight over the executive branch of government.

That is true in general, but it is especially true when we have a President like Donald Trump who categorically refused to recognize congressional subpoenas, blocked members of his administration from coming to testify before Congress in an unprecedented way, and generally refused to cooperate with congressional factfinding at all.

When a President refuses to cooperate with the legislative branch, when he obstructs Congress at every turn, the IGs are our only source of information. It is imperative that we protect our inspectors general's independence and their impartiality so they will not be reduced to the level of being Presidential sycophants who are party loyalists.

The Supreme Court has recognized the importance of IG independence, noting that it is ``vital to effectuating Congress' intent and maintaining an opportunity for objective inquiries into bureaucratic waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.''

This bill will ensure that the IGs have the tools that they need to conduct thorough investigations on behalf of the American people, and it will protect them from unjust political retaliation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve as the lead Democratic cosponsor of the bill introduced by my friend from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the Foundation of the Federal Bar Association Charter Amendments Act of 2021.

The Federal Bar Association is the primary voluntary bar association for attorneys, both in the private and public sectors, who practice in the Federal courts. The bill will permit the foundation to better fulfill its role as the only institution chartered in America by Congress to promote the Federal administration of justice, the advancement of Federal jurisprudence, and the practice of law in the Federal courts by providing it with the organizational flexibility that it needs to grow and to adapt to its contemporary mission.

The original charter created a framework that has served FBA well for the last six decades. During these years, the foundation has, indeed, strengthened Federal jurisprudence and promoted legal education and understanding at the Federal level, and it

has improved the lives of a lot of people.

One community outreach program I know about through a number of my constituents is the Wills for Veterans initiative, which is a pro bono project where the FBA chapters provide the drafting of wills and signing services for veterans in our communities.

Another initiative set up the Dr. J. Clay Smith Jr. Diversity in the Legal Profession Scholarship program, which aims to promote diversity in the profession and to promote the inclusion of racially and ethnically diverse students in law schools and in the work of the Federal Bar Association.

All of these programs and initiatives broaden and strengthen the legal community and need to be bolstered in the years ahead. To allow the FBA greater flexibility to operate and grow as the legal community changes, the current charter must be amended.

In its current iteration, the existing charter codifies strict membership and governance requirements that constrain member development and nimble governance of the organization. This rigidity presents serious challenges as the organization seeks to expand its critical educational and charitable work.

H.R. 2679 makes technical fixes to the charter that will give the FBA the needed flexibility to advance its mission in the 21st century. In the place of legislatively fixed membership criteria, it permits FBA to establish and update membership criteria through the bylaws process itself. Similar provisions authorize enhanced flexibility in the composition and duties of the members of its board.

In general, the measure would enable the FBA to swiftly meet the needs and the priorities of the organization and improve the administration of Federal justice. I urge all colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Green is not just a passionate representative of the people of the Ninth District of Texas, he speaks for millions and millions of people across the country. It has been very moving to hear him talk about the problem of police brutality and violence, which threatens our social contract.

The whole purpose of the social contract is that we will be safer inside of it than we will be outside of it. And, yet, the social contract is not working for a lot of people in a lot of different parts of the country.

So I thank him for his passionate leadership on behalf of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act and for having us address this central problem.

I appreciate your yielding to me. I wanted to spend a few minutes talking about what is going on in the Middle East. It has been a brutal week for Israeli and Palestinian civilians, as hundreds have been killed in the savage violence that is engulfing the Middle East now.

This week I had the opportunity to meet on Zoom with young Palestinians and Israelis who are part of a group called New Story Leadership, which is a peace-building group that, since 2009, has brought Israeli and Palestinian interns to come work on Capitol Hill.

I have had these interns work for me for, I think, 5 or 6 years, really ever since I arrived in the House of Representatives. They come to work, and they come to interact with each other. They come to learn about democracy and human rights from America, a country that was conceived with the dream of human rights and equality for everybody. Although that was not remotely the reality for a lot of people, but it has been the struggle for human rights and for equality that has defined the American ethos and the American spirit.

So I asked these young Israeli and Palestinian former interns for me and for other Members of Congress, as part of the New Story Leadership program, to write to me about what is going on in their lives. Because too often, of course, our sense of what is happening in a foreign land is filtered through media, and it is filtered through different kinds of party propaganda. I wanted to hear directly from them. I thought I would share with you some of the responses I got. I want to enter them into the Congressional Record.

Here is one from a Jewish Israeli citizen named Meshi: My name is Meshi. I am an Israeli American, currently living in Tel Aviv. I was born and raised in northern Israel, where my early childhood was spent under rocket fire from Hezbollah. Today, in my late 20s, I am under rocket fire from Hamas. In the last week or so, I have taken shelter in my building's old stairway. I have run for cover in the street. I saw the lynching of an Arab citizen by a Jewish mob on live TV. And I worried for my brother-in-law, who had to leave my sister and their newborn son at home after he was called into reserve duty.

Here's one from a Jewish Israeli citizen named Eran: My name is Eran Nissan. I was an intern in Congressman Raskin's office in 2019. I became a peace activist because of my military service, where I served as a combat soldier in the Israeli Special Forces. For 4 years, I was sent to countless missions to all of Israel's borders: Lebanon, Syria, but mainly the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I experienced combat. I lost friends and I lost classmates. These past 2 weeks have been the scariest and most depressing time of my entire life. I spent the last week monitoring rightwing groups on social media, where terrorist organizations planned and organized lynchings and riots throughout Israel. I did this as part of my digital activism, working with former intelligence officers turned progressive political activists. My neighborhood in Jaffa used to be a beacon of coexistence and cooperation between Jews and Arabs. Now it is a war zone. The sounds of exploding stun grenades from the nearby riots are only disturbed by the sirens sending everyone into the shelters and stairways.

This is from Marwa, who is a Palestinian on the West Bank: My name is Marwa Odeh. I am a Palestinian American from Hewara in Area C of the West Bank. I was an intern in Congressman

Raskin's office in 2018. This year, a Muslim high holy day became a day of chaos and despair for my family. On the day of Eid, May 13, my cousin Yehya, who I used to play soccer with in my grandparents' backyard, was shot in the eye with a rubber bullet fired by an Israeli soldier. The rubber bullet tore open his left eyeball, leaving Yehya blind in one eye. After that military action, my mother and my baby sister Jena traveled to the hospital and were caught in a barrage of tear gas and rubber bullets. Jena, who is just 5 years old, explained to me the horror and fear that she went through: ``I was choking and my eyes were burning. We were just going to see Yehya. We did nothing,'' she told me in a FaceTime call that night.

Here's one from Lujayn, a Palestinian who lives in East Jerusalem: My name is Lujayn. I am a Palestinian living in East Jerusalem, in a small village called Beit Hanina, which is surrounded by settlements. One of the most basic human rights is to feel safe and secure, but my family and I cannot feel safe in East Jerusalem. We can't feel safe because settlers under the protection of Israeli soldiers are chanting ``Death to Arabs'' and attacking Palestinians in my neighborhood. I can't feel safe because an Israeli soldier threw a stun grenade at my father as we walked out of Al-Aqsa Mosque during Ramadan. I can't feel safe walking to the market and even sitting in my own house. During the past few days, I have been telling my sisters and parents to turn off the lights at home so that no one will think we are there. When I traveled to my university a few days ago to get my diploma, I felt like a walking target because I was constantly afraid I would be attacked just because I am a Palestinian.

Here's one from Danni, a Jewish Israeli: My name is Danni, and I am a Jewish Israeli. I am engaged to an Israeli combat soldier, and we live in Haifa, which is known as the city of coexistence. In Haifa, I study and work with Arabs and Jews alike. Last week, our city was hit by a wave of violence by citizens against citizens. Violent extremists have roamed the streets, terrorizing people and vandalizing people. Dear American people, I know that you understand how dangerous it is to stay silent when you see discrimination, oppression, and violence. It is simply unsustainable. We need to move past the status quo so that I can marry my fiance instead of him going to war, only to return to a broken city.

Here's one from Tasnim, who lives in the Gaza: My name is Tasnim, and I am a Palestinian from Gaza. My family and I left Gaza during the 2008 war. Unfortunately, when we moved, my sister was separated from her children and they stayed in Gaza. Today, my two nieces, Iama and Heba, who are young and dream of traveling the world, still live there in Gaza. Since the airstrikes have started, we have been calling them every single day to check to see if they are still alive. We hear of constant attacks where kids are being buried under the rubble of their own houses, along with their dreams. We are constantly afraid that the next time we call them, we will not be able to reach them. The fear and stress that come with trying to connect with my family in Gaza is unimaginable.

Mr. Speaker, forgive me, how much time do I have remaining?

This is from Baha, a Palestinian from the West Bank: My name is Baja Ebdeir, and I am from the occupied village of Beit Nattiff. Now I live in Beit Jala. This past Ramadan, Israel refused to issue permits for Palestinians to observe prayers at Al-Aqsa Mosque. However, my father was one of the few luckiest to be issued a permit for a medical appointment he had at the hospital in East Jerusalem. It was not the medical appointment itself that got my father all excited and happy, but the fact that he could use it to observe the holiest night of Ramadan, Laylit Al-Qadr, the night of decree, at Al-Aqsa Mosque, where our destiny is determined by God for the whole year. Before he left, my father told us, ``After all, I have a permit, what could happen?''

Actually, a lot happened in the two days my father spent at Al-Aqsa. As the evening went by, an army of Israeli soldiers began to increase in number. As soon as the Imam uttered ``Allah Akbar,'' God is the greatest, to start off the holiest night prayer, Israeli soldiers threw gas canisters at worshipers. As a result of the excessive amount of gas my father inhaled, his severe coughing continues until today and his eyes are as red as blood.

Usually my father never shares his fears with me, but this time he opened up and I listened with awe. With every cough, my father vividly remembers Al-Aqsa Mosque as a war zone where Israeli soldiers shot rubber bullets and threw gas canisters at Palestinians. Hundreds were injured and many of the elderly lost their lives on the holiest night.

Here is one from Doron, a Jewish Israeli citizen: My name is Doron, and I am an Israeli who has lived in Jerusalem for the last decade. Since 2009, I have participated in peaceful protests in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah every week. I was touched to see how during the recent few months, these protests have gained support and momentum in Israel, Palestine, and internationally. Suddenly, activists in the region and around the world demanded justice for the residents of Sheikh Jarrah, who have been evicted from their homes. Unfortunately, everything was disrupted by the recent escalation, which was orchestrated to undermine the local movement in Jerusalem before it was able to achieve any gains. Jerusalem is the home of Israelis and Palestinians, and it should be equal, free, and safe for all its inhabitants. Residents of Sheikh Jarrah should not be afraid to be evicted from their homes at any moment.

Here is one from Diala, a Palestinian citizen of Israel: My name is Diala, and I am a Palestinian citizen of Israel from Nazareth. During the past few weeks, I have protested alongside many Palestinian women against evictions in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah in Jerusalem. I am a feminist and I strongly believe that the struggle for gender equality is deeply connected to this struggle. As the police cracked down on us, a group of peaceful protestors consisting primarily of women, an Israeli police officer kicked me and pushed me to the ground. As I lay on the ground, he continued to kick me, aiming at my legs and ribs. Throughout my life, I have been told repeatedly that I have full and equal rights as a citizen of Israel. However, this week, I have witnessed the oppressive brutality at play against me and my people.

Mr. Speaker, we owe these young people a different future. In Israel and in the West Bank and in Gaza, we owe them a future of peace and justice and prosperity, where rockets are not raining down on the people of Israel or the people in the West Bank or the people in Gaza. We owe them a future where every young person can cultivate his or her own creative talents and dreams for the future. We owe them a future of mutual security for all sides and human rights for all people.

Everyone knows that the first casualty of war is the truth. We want to make sure that the stories that people are living on the ground are not consumed in any kind of party propaganda.

I urge my colleagues to listen to the voices of young Israelis and young Palestinians suffering through this brutal cycle of violence and ethnic conflict and systemic injustice. We owe it to them to call openly and loudly on Prime Minister Netanyahu and on Hamas to accept an immediate cease-fire and an end to all violence against civilians. This is the precondition for moving forward to real peace and respect for the human rights of all.

I applaud President Biden and his administration's commitment to ending this violence. I hope that America will, again, with the new administration, be able to resume a forward-looking and constructive role in addressing all of the problems that beset the people in Israel and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this week I met on Zoom with young Israelis and Palestinians who are part of New Story Leadership, a peacebuilding group that, since 2009, has brought dozens of Palestinian and Israeli youth to work as summer interns on Capitol Hill and to share their stories with Members of Congress. Here are a few of the stories my former interns and other participants sent me about the horrific events of the last few weeks:

Meshi--Jewish Israeli

My name is Meshi, I'm an Israeli American, currently living in Tel- Aviv. I was born and raised in northern Israel where my early childhood was spent under rocket fire from Hezbollah, and today, in my late twenties, I'm under rocket fire from Hamas. In the last week or so I've taken shelter in my building's old stairway, run for cover in the street, saw the lynching of an Arab citizen by a Jewish mob on live TV, and worried for my brother-in-law that had to leave my sister and their newborn son at home after he was called into reserve duty.

Eran--Jewish Israeli

My name is Eran Nissan. I was an intern in Congressman Jamie Raskin's office in 2019. I became a peace activist because of my military service, where I served as a combat soldier in the Israeli special forces. For four years I was sent to countless missions to all of Israel's borders--Lebanon, Syria, but mainly the West Bank and the Gaza strip. I experienced combat, I lost friends and classmates.

These past two weeks have been the scariest and most depressing time of my life. I spent the last week monitoring Right Wing groups on social media, where Jewish terrorist organizations planned and organized lynching and riots throughout Israel. I did this as part of my digital activism, working with ex-intelligence officers turned progressive political activists. My neighborhood in Jaffa used to be a beacon of coexistence and cooperation between Jews and Arabs. Now it is a war zone. The sounds of exploding stun grenades from the nearby riots are only disturbed by the sirens, sending everyone to the shelters and stairways.

Marwa--West Bank Palestinian

My name is Marwa Odeh, I am a Palestinian American from Hewara in Area C of the West Bank. I was an intern in Congressman Jamie Raskin's office in 2018.

This year, a Muslim high holy day became a day of chaos and despair for my family. On the day of Eid, May 13th, my cousin, Yehya, who I used to play soccer with in my grandparents' backyard, was shot in the eye with a rubber bullet fired by an Israeli soldier. The rubber bullet tore open his left eyeball, leaving Yehya blind in one eye. After that military action, my mother and my baby sister, Jena, traveled to the hospital and were caught in a barrage of tear gas and rubber bullets. Jena, who is just 5 years old, explained to me the horror and fear she went through. ``I was choking and my eyes were burning. We were just going to see Yehya, we did nothing,'' she told me in a FaceTime call that night.

Lujayn--Palestinian East-Jerusalemite

My name is Lujayn and I am a Palestinian living in East Jerusalem in a small village called Beit Hanina, which is surrounded by settlements.

One of the most basic human rights is to feel safe and secure, but my family and I cannot feel safe in East Jerusalem. We can't feel safe because settlers under the protection of Israeli soldiers are chanting ``Death to Arabs'' and attacking Palestinians in my neighborhood. I can't feel safe because an Israeli soldier threw a stun grenade at my father as we walked out of AI-Aqsa Mosque during Ramadan. I can't feel safe walking to the market, and even sitting in my own house. During the past few days, I have been telling my sisters and parents to turn off the lights at home so that no on will think we are there. When I traveled to my university a few days ago to get my diploma, I felt like a walking target because I was constantly afraid that I would be attacked, just because I am a Palestinian.

Danni--Jewish Israeli

My name is Danni, and I am a Jewish Israeli. I am engaged to an Israeli combat soldier, and we live in Haifa, which is known as the city of coexistence. In Haifa, I study and work with Arabs and Jews alike. Last week our city was hit by a wave of violence by citizens against citizens. Violent extremists have roamed the streets terrorizing people and vandalizing property. Dear American people, I know that you understand how dangerous it is to stay silent when you see discrimination, oppression, and violence. It is simply unsustainable. We need to move past the status quo, so that I can marry my fiance instead of him going to war, only to return to a broken city.

Tasnim--Gazan

My name is Tasnim, and I am a Palestinian from Gaza. My family and I left Gaza during the 2008 war. Unfortunately, when we moved, my sister was separated from her children, and they stayed in Gaza. Today, my two nieces, lama and Heba, who are young and dream of traveling the world, still live in Gaza. Since the air strikes have started, we have been calling them every single day to check if they are still alive. We hear of constant attacks where kids are being buried under the rubble of their own houses along with their dreams. We are constantly afraid that the next time we call them, we will not be able to reach them. The fear and stress that come with trying to connect with my family in Gaza is unimaginable.

Baha--Palestinian from the West Bank

My name is Baha Ebdeir and I am from the occupied village of Beit Nattiff, but now I live now in Beit Jala.

This past Ramadan, Israel refused to issue permits for Palestinians to observe prayers at AI-Aqsa mosque. However, my father was one of the few luckiest to be issued a permit for a medical appointment he had at the Hospital in East Jerusalem. It was not the medical appointment itself that got my father all excited and happy, but the fact that he could use it to observe the holiest night of Ramadan, Laylit AI-Qadr (The Night of Decree), at AI-Aqsa mosque, where our destiny is determined by God for the whole year.

Before he left, my father told us: ``After all, I have a permit, what could happen?''

Actually, a lot happened in the two days my father spent at AI-Aqsa.

As the evening went by, an army of Israeli soldiers began to increase in number. As soon as the Imam uttered Allah Akbar (God is the Greatest) to start off the holiest night prayer, Israeli soldiers started throwing gas canisters at worshipers. As a result of the excessive amount of gas my father inhaled, his severe coughing continues until today and his eyes are as red as blood.

Usually, my father never shares his fears with me, but this time he opened up and I listened with awe. With every cough, my father vividly remembers AI-Aqsa mosque as a war zone where Israeli soldiers unapologetically shot rubber bullets and threw gas canisters at Palestinians for merely being Palestinians. Hundreds were injured and many of the elderly lost their lives on the holiest night.

Doron--Jewish Israeli

My name is Doron and I am an Israeli, who has lived in Jerusalem for the last decade. Since 2009, I have participated in peaceful protests in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah every week. I was touched to see how during the recent few months, these protests have gained support and momentum in Israel, Palestine and internationally. Suddenly, activists in the region and around the world demanded justice for the Palestinian residents of Sheikh Jarrah, who have been evicted from their homes by Jewish Settlers. Unfortunately, everything was disrupted by the recent escalation, which was orchestrated to undermine the local movement in Jerusalem, before it was able to achieve any gains. Jerusalem is the home of Israelis and Palestinians and it should be equal, free and safe for all its inhabitants. Residents of Sheikh Jarrah should not be afraid to be evicted of their homes at any moment.

Moe--Palestinian from the West Bank

My name is Moe and I am a Palestinian from the West Bank, I interned with Congressman Jamie Raskin in 2019.

Seven months ago I got married. This year, my wife and I celebrated our first Ramadan together. We were so excited to celebrate it together with both our families, but her family was unable to travel to see us, because all the roads had been closed and settlers have been patrolling the streets between the cities ready to attack Palestinian travelers. We can't see our family and we can't travel anywhere.

I have heard about the danger that awaits us if we travel outside of our village and I am terrified. I am worried for the safety of my three brothers and father, who have jobs that require them to travel to Israel. Now, they are stuck at home, unable to travel because they have been warned that if they try to cross the border between the West Bank and Israel, their lives would be in danger.

Madam Speaker, the January 6 insurrection against our Congress, our Constitution, and our election was one of the worst political crimes in American history.

It interrupted the peaceful transfer of power. It injured, wounded, hospitalized more than 140 law enforcement officials who were punched, kicked, maced, spat upon, and speared by Confederate battle flags, Donald Trump flags, American flags. They had eyes gouged. One lost several fingers.

They turned the Capitol of the United States and this Chamber into a crime scene.

The independent January 6 commission legislation brought forth by Chairman Thompson, a Democrat, and Congressman Katko, a Republican, is bipartisan in composition: five Republicans and five Democrats, equal subpoena power. It is nonpartisan in design and in function.

Its whole purpose is to determine the events and the causes of those events on January 6 so we can prepare effectively to stop it from ever happening again to the people of America.

The key precedent was the 9/11 Commission, which was critical for mobilizing public attention to the dangers of al-Qaida and other foreign terror networks and helping us to rectify inadequacies in our security infrastructure and to prepare to defend our democracy.

Today, the number one security threat facing the American people is domestic violent extremism, and we saw what domestic violent extremism can do when it broke into our House on January 6.

According to the Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas: ``Domestic violent extremism poses the most lethal and persistent terrorism-related threat to our country today.''

Abraham Lincoln made a beautiful speech that I recommend to all of my colleagues before they vote on this legislation today, the Lyceum Address, where he said all the armies of Europe, all the armies of Africa and Asia, could never conquer American democracy. But if there is a mortal threat to us, it will come from within, from dissension within, and threats to the constitutional order from within.

We must pay attention to what happened on January 6, and we must honor those brave men and women who fought for hours against medieval- style waves of violence raining down upon them on that day. And we must do honor to future generations of Americans to find out exactly what happened and why, and how to stop it in the future.

Let's pass this legislation today.