Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Retired Specialist Lucas Schmitz who sustained severe injuries while heroically serving the United States as part of the Minnesota Army National Guard.

Specialist Schmitz has spent his life serving others. In 2005, Schmitz was deployed to Iraq with the Minnesota Army National Guard as an Infantryman with the Second Combined Arms Battalion of the 34th Infantry Division. On July 25, 2006, the vehicle that Specialist Schmitz's was riding in hit an IED, forcing them to vacate it. While running to the next vehicle, Specialist Schmitz was injured by stepping on a second IED and tragically lost his right leg.

Upon his medical discharge from the Minnesota Army National Guard, Schmitz moved back to his hometown of Perham, Minnesota where he now lives with his wife, Tina, and three children. He has continued with his commitment to helping others by teaching special education at Perham Public Schools. Surrounded by the support of his family and community, Schmitz will receive a new home from the organization Homes For Our Troops that is specifically designed to accommodate the needs resulting from his injuries.

I am eternally grateful for Specialist Schmitz's dedication to our Nation, and the sacrifices the men and women in the military make every day as they risk their lives to keep us safe. On behalf of Minnesota and the

United States House of Representatives, I thank him for his service.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Representative from Texas for yielding to me.

Madam Speaker, this bill has gone through several versions just this week--possibly just today--too many for even the bill's sponsors to keep up with.

During one of the several Rules Committee hearings, committee chairs could not even explain specific provisions of the bill.

How does the majority think the American public can really know what is in this bill?

The majority will stick very closely to the talking points, using words like ``transformational,'' ``bold vision,'' and ``values-based leadership,'' and they will say things about affordable housing, universal pre-K, and drug pricing.

But do we know where all that money is really going? Our constituents deserve to understand each of these programs but also the ones that they don't include in their talking points.

They have eliminated the bipartisan Hyde amendment protections that for 40 years have been preventing tax dollars from being used to pay for abortion. It is being reported that there is approximately $756 billion in a welfare spending increase.

How is that money being used? Where is it going?

The bill also includes at least a few budget gimmicks. The bill offers partial funding for some programs, creating temporary programs that are clearly meant to be permanent. This means the cost estimates for the bills are not accurate into the future.

The committee chairs even have a hard time explaining how those budget gimmicks work. One of the biggest ticket items is the $320 billion in tax subsidies for electric vehicles, solar energy, wind, and other green energy, and an additional $25 million for the President to establish an environmental initiative.

The American public might want to know that almost $45 billion is going to the IRS for increased enforcement and digital monitoring, especially since the Democrats have proposed spying on Americans' bank accounts.

This bill pours billions of dollars into government agencies to further insert government bureaucrats into the daily lives of American citizens.

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

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to ignore the feeling that this is one more example of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to distract from the real issues that concern Americans. We have an administration that can't stop the flood of illegal immigrants at our southern border, can't unlock the supply bottlenecks at our ports.

What are the Democrats doing about inflation?

What are the Democrats doing about the border issues?

What are the Democrats doing about supply chain issues?

And what are the Democrats doing about the worker shortage?

And I could go on. Instead, we are here going back and forth arguing if we should continue down a path of yet another partisan investigation of questionable motives and purpose. No wonder the public thinks we can't do our job.

That said, there are several questions that need to be resolved before we can continue with this vote. The Supreme Court has found that the power rests with Congress for subpoenas if they serve a legitimate legislative purpose, and be ``related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.''

A legitimate legislative purpose would be issuing subpoenas to the leaders of the D.C. National Guard and Sergeant at Arms so that we can find out what gaps in communications and authorities that need to be filled and find solutions to ensure that this doesn't happen again. But have those been issued? No.

Instead, House Democrats are continuing their witch hunt into President Trump and their political opponents that voted against the certification of the election in some States, something that they, themselves, did just 4 years ago.

What information is intended to be gathered that would be useful for a legitimate legislative purpose? Much of the discussion in the Rules Committee centered around criminal action, not around legislation. These concerns would have been raised by Republicans if Speaker Pelosi had not rejected the minority leader's nominees. But instead, she hand- picked Members that would fit her and the Democrats' narrative.

It seems the story line has already been decided. We need to ensure that it is, as stated, intended to investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to January 6. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats made it clear early on that this committee and its investigation outcome was predetermined when it tilted representation in favor of Democrats and, again, rejected the two Republican Members selected to serve on the Commission by the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the precedent being set here today as the majority, yet again, embarks on another investigation in search of a crime.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with all respect to my colleague from Massachusetts, the fact still remains that when the minority leader did try to participate in this Commission, the Speaker rejected the two nominees that the minority leader had offered.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler).

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for the additional consideration of H.R. 5586, the Prohibiting IRS Financial Surveillance Act, authored by Representative Ferguson.

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

Mr. Speaker, requiring banks and Federal credit unions to disclose personal details about their customers' accounts is an extreme invasion of privacy, and it would have terrible implications for community banks and credit unions in my district and across the country.

I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised about this egregious attempt on behalf of the Democrats. They clearly want as much government involvement as possible in every possible part of American citizens' lives. I may not be surprised anymore, but I continue to be disappointed that they refuse to listen to the American citizens who time and time again say they want Big Government out of their lives and their wallets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, the majority has chosen to turn the committee into a vehicle to push their own narrative, and it is clearly more interested in pursuing a partisan agenda to politicize January 6 rather than conducting a legitimate, good-faith investigation into the security failures leading up to that day.

As my colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out, where is the legitimate legislative purpose? The Members across the aisle have yet to address what kind of legitimate legislative purposes could, might, or even possibly come out of the commission investigation.

A lawful subpoena, according to the Supreme Court, needs to serve a legitimate legislative purpose. The majority leader used words like ``oversight,'' ``the American people need to understand,'' and ``hold perpetrators accountable.'' These statements do not qualify as a legitimate legislative purpose.

This is nothing more than an attempt by the Democrats to distract from the very real issues facing Americans every day. I look forward to getting back to the real work of solving the supply chain issues, reclaiming American energy production, and empowering U.S. citizens to live their lives without government interference or surveillance.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the previous question, the rule, and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 716 provides for the consideration of four bills, including an irresponsible extension of the Federal debt limit and two bills that would have questionable consequences for small businesses.

I am most concerned about S. 1301, which serves as the vehicle for an extension of the Federal debt limit until December 3. This accomplishes nothing more than kicking the can down the road on something that should be addressed now.

Given the majority's insistence on passing several multi-trillion- dollar spending packages--Democrats are now in control of the House, Senate, and White House--they can pass a debt limit extension using their majority since it is their policies that are requiring substantially larger and earlier increases to the debt limit.

In the past, when Congress was required to raise the debt ceiling, the two parties were able to negotiate a bipartisan path forward. Democrats simply refuse to work with House Republicans, despite having many opportunities to do so. Instead, they are determined to ram a $3.5 trillion spending bill checking off every item on their socialist wish list.

I am equally incensed that Democrats won't even give the debt limit extension a proper debate or vote on the House floor. Instead, this rule will deem the debt limit extension passed. This is an insult to the Members of this body who are being denied the opportunity to fully consider the gravity of extending the debt limit to account for increasing unnecessary spending. It is absolutely unacceptable to run Congress in this fashion.

The second bill up for consideration under this rule is H.R. 3110, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act.

Nursing mothers deserve protections in the workplace, which is why we already have strong laws in place to ensure reasonable break time and access to private, non-bathroom locations. This bill imposes a one- size-fits-all requirement for employers and includes penalties for employer violations.

Mr. Speaker, our small businesses have suffered through enough new burdensome regulations as they fought to survive over the last year. There is no need to duplicate existing law.

The third bill included in this rule is H.R. 3992, the Protect Older Job Applicants Act, which expands the definition in the existing Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to include applicants for employment as a protected class.

To be clear, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act already prohibits age discrimination in hiring, making this legislation redundant and unnecessary. Under the scope of this new proposed legislation, employers using common recruiting practices like internships and job fairs could be accused of discriminating against older workers, as older workers are less likely to participate in these opportunities than young Americans entering the workforce for the first time.

This bill is just a murky expansion of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The only impact this legislation will have is on the number of lawsuits brought against American businesses.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the fourth bill up for consideration under this rule is H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act of 2021. The Family Violence Prevention and Services program does critical work to support victims of family violence, and many of my colleagues and I support reauthorizing this program in its current form.

Unfortunately, this is another example of the majority working alone to

draft legislation rather than working in a bipartisan fashion to put together a bill we can all support.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned about a provision in this bill that could allow funds from this program, funds that should be going to support victims of violence, to be used for abortion services now that the Hyde amendment was stripped out of the annual appropriations bill. This is obviously troubling, and we cannot allow a pathway for taxpayer dollars to fund abortion.

Mr. Speaker, there is much to be concerned about in these four bills; most troubling of which is the temporary increase to the Federal debt limit, which is happening for no other reason than the Democrats' own mistakes.

They have worked alone on everything else. They have chosen not to be bipartisan to resolve the issues facing our country. Instead, they have chosen to push through partisan proposals while kicking critical issues down the road.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague on the Rules Committee that I stated very clearly that I was talking about House Republicans. But I do want to point out that no Republican in the Senate voted for this debt limit extension in addition to that, and I appreciate the majority leader's words. He gave us a history lesson about the debt limit and the votes and about not playing politics, but I just want to, before we move on, remind everyone about a quote from then-Senator and now President Biden. It was from 2004, during President Bush's Presidency and then-Senator Biden said: ``My symbolic vote against raising the debt limit would have been a protest of the policies that brought us to this point, and I demand that we change course.''

So this has not always been as bipartisan as the majority leader made it appear.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

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

Mr. Speaker, as we hear so much about this wonderful bipartisan history of this debt ceiling, I just want to point out that the last five times Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and the White House, the current Speaker and the entire current Democratic leadership only voted to raise the debt limit one time. So I wish that we would make sure that we point out the accurate history of how this has happened.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).

Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear from my colleagues across the aisle this notion that debt limit votes are always bipartisan.

I just want to point out again, however, that in the last 20 years there were five occasions where the party in power had to pass the debt limit through the Senate by themselves. This includes when then-Senator Biden and Senator Schumer voted against raising the debt ceiling under President George W. Bush.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

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

Mr. Speaker, I point out that my colleague from the Committee on Rules points out that we did debate this bill, S. 1301, a couple of weeks ago. But he also pointed out that there is a Senate amendment that was added to it that we are not debating right now. So it is not entirely the same bill that we talked about 2 weeks ago. I wanted to make sure that was pointed out because it is not the same bill.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, there is lots of discussion and input that people want to have on this debt ceiling issue, and I really do feel the need to say it again: this is an irresponsible way to run Congress. And the Democrats are not giving this debt limit extension the proper debate. What we are actually debating right now is the rule. We are not debating the actual issue of the debt ceiling and talking about it in depth, as we should be. I wanted to make sure that the American people understood that that is what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that, yet again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to operate without input from the minority. Voting for increasing the debt ceiling without proper consideration in the House is simply irresponsible. These bills include troubling consequences for small businesses.

Given that the Democrats are unwilling to accept Republican input on anything else they are working to pass, including but not limited to stripping the Hyde amendment from all legislation possible, something that is in moral opposition to millions of Americans, I see no reason this should be any different. Again, Democrats can pass this extension using their majority.

Mr. Speaker, we could have done so much good while addressing these topics. I am deeply disappointed that the majority chooses to pursue these bills without including House Republicans in negotiations. I ask that, in the future, they give us all the opportunity to come together for the good of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule; I oppose the underlying bills; and I ask Members to do the same.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I send my congratulations to the Republic of China on the upcoming October 10th celebration of Taiwan's National Day.

Taiwan's democratic model of government serves as a role model to other nations. The people of Taiwan's dedication to elections that are open, free, and fair shows their commitment to freedom. The United States and Taiwan share a strong bond over our mutual commitment to the personal freedom for our citizens and for the citizens of the world.

The United States and Taiwan have shared a trade partnership with each other that brings benefit to both nations. I am proud that in 2018. Taiwan made a deal with the United States to buy $1.5 billion in soybeans from my State of Minnesota and neighboring Iowa. This powerful relationship helps to promote the prosperity of businesses and citizens both in Taiwan and the United States.

Once again, I wish to express my congratulations on this 110th anniversary of Taiwan's National Day.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for yielding me the time.

We hear a lot of talk coming from the other side about this Texas law, but I want to talk about the legislation that we have in front of us today and what effects that will have.

Madam Speaker, it should be called the abortion on demand bill because it does nothing to protect women's health; rather, it supersedes States' rights and makes any protection for women and unborn children illegal.

This bill will override countless protective State laws like parental notice, clinic regulations, and informed consent before an abortion.

The abortion on demand act would not only strip States of their rights to protect women and babies, but it would also strip away a parent's right to be involved and informed on their child's health and well-being.

What about protecting minors? Would States be allowed to ensure parental involvement or even notification? The answer is, of course, no under this legislation. In fact, it is just the contrary. The bill strips all of these protections provided by State laws.

One of my highest priorities as a Member of Congress is protecting the right to life for all innocent life from conception until natural death. This bill is a shameful attempt to override States' rights and codify widespread abortion on demand in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

This amendment would prohibit the President, Vice President, and Cabinet members from contracting with the Federal Government. The amendment adds broad new language to the criminal code and could discourage people from entering Federal service. We should want and encourage the most qualified people to run for office and serve in our Federal Government.

This amendment is completely outside the scope of the NDAA and nothing more than a desperate attempt to score political points. This is the kind of unrelated amendment that does not belong in the NDAA.

We are now 8 months into the Biden administration, yet Democrats continue to push legislation, as mentioned by the previous speaker, that is targeted at the Trump administration.

But what else can Democrats talk about? Rising inflation caused by President Biden's failed economic policies? Rising crime caused by Democrats defunding the police? The Biden border crisis?

If Democrats were serious about ethics reform, they would carefully consider this as a standalone bill. Instead, they choose to slap it onto an unrelated bill with no discussion or thought. This amendment and provision should go through regular order so Members have the opportunity to debate and consider ethics reforms.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not the bill for this amendment, and it certainly should go through the process and be given the consideration and discussion due true ethics reforms instead of amendments that simply target the former President and his administration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for hosting this Special Order to discuss the abortion on demand act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes national abortion on demand until birth, abolishing all past, present, and future State laws on this topic. Not only does this pose a grave threat to States' rights, but it will also harm countless babies and women along the way.

During Rules Committee, I asked a simple question: Does anything in this bill actually have any reasonable health benefit for women? And the answer is, no, it does not. The bill the Democrats name the Women's Health Protection Act has nothing to do with women's health.

This bill would wipe out countless State laws that protect women and babies, like clinic regulation and parental notice, including a law I shepherded through the Minnesota State Legislature on women's right to know. This law simply requires a physician to provide a woman seeking an abortion information about medical risks.

I can't imagine a world in which a physician performs a non-emergent medical procedure on any person without explaining their options and risks beforehand, but that is apparently the world my Democrat colleagues want to live in.

As a co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, one of my highest priorities as a Member of Congress is protecting innocent life. This bill is a direct, tragic attack on life, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I will just say, it has been a long and bumpy road to get here so I am happy to finally be here on the floor with the rule.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 601 provides for the consideration of two controversial partisan bills and deems the $3.5 trillion reconciliation resolution adopted that strips away local control and adds trillions to the national debt.

The bill deemed adopted under this rule is S. Con. Res. 14, the $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending binge that passed the Senate earlier this month.

Madam Speaker, prices are at a 13-year high, and inflation is rising. President Biden has already spent $1.9 trillion and is now looking to spend an additional $3.5 trillion, all while his administration pays Americans not to work and stifles our robust economy.

Not only does this budget call for the highest sustained Federal spending level in American history, but it also amounts to a whopping $68 trillion over the next decade. It raises taxes on the American people, shifts jobs overseas, and taxes American employers at one of the highest rates in the world. It eliminates ``right to work'' protection and does nothing to address the historic flow of illegal immigration at the southern border.

Democrats know their proposals are unpopular. They can't even get their own conference to agree. Instead, they are resorting to smoke and mirrors to push it through and hoping the American people aren't paying attention. Where is the transparency?

If Democrats truly want to serve and help the American people, they need far more transparency and input from everyone, not just a few. This is no way to build a budget.

Madam Speaker, then there is H.R. 4, which would make changes to the Voting Rights Act and strips State and local governments of their ability to manage their own elections. The Constitution places the responsibility for elections at the State level, and we have a long history of letting each State run their own elections. But H.R. 4 grants the Federal Government unprecedented control over State and local elections. It empowers the Attorney General to bully States and forces those States to seek Federal approval before making changes to their own voting laws.

H.R. 4 also provides incentives for advocacy groups to file as many objections as possible to manufacture litigation in the hope of triggering coverage under the Voting Rights Act. We need safeguards that make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. H.R. 4 is not the solution.

Madam Speaker, finally, the final bill in this resolution is the Senate amendment to H.R. 3684, which provides for $1.2 trillion in new infrastructure spending.

Madam Speaker, I hate to say it, but my Democrat colleagues are using the bipartisan infrastructure framework to force their Members to also push through trillions more in their outlandish spending resolution. Our constituents are tired of Washington playing games with their livelihoods.

To be sure, investing in our Nation's infrastructure is critical. However, only a fraction of this $1 trillion-plus bill is for roads, bridges, and other projects the American people would consider traditional infrastructure. With tens of billions for electric vehicle plug-ins, Amtrak, and light rail, if you live in a deep blue city, this bill is for you. But if you are one of the millions of Americans in a more rural area, this bill leaves you behind.

Madam Speaker, our country's infrastructure should not be tied to the Democrats' partisan spending spree, especially during a pandemic. But here we are. Until Democrats stop playing games and work with their colleagues on a truly bipartisan compromise, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bills.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), ranking member of the Budget Committee.

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 provide for additional consideration of H.R. 5071, authored by Representative Gallagher.

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

Madam Speaker, President Biden's failure to lead has resulted in a national security and humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan that we cannot ignore.

Now the Taliban is back and the United States is less safe. The President has offered no specific plan for getting those Americans out of Afghanistan safely.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), from Wisconsin's Eighth Congressional District.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the minority whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Waltz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ellzey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

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

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

Madam Speaker, Democrats continue to ram through controversial policies and reckless spending with a complete disregard for the rules and with no consideration of what those decisions will mean for future generations and what they have to pay back.

President Biden took office saying he would be President for everybody, but he certainly isn't acting like that. The legislation before us today that is included in this rule would leave rural communities behind, concentrate even more power at the Federal level, and tax and spend recklessly.

The President is too busy pressuring Members of his own party to support $5 trillion in spending to even address the crisis in Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying bills, and I ask Members to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember Red Lake Nation Police Officer Ryan Andrew Bialke, who was killed in the line of duty on Tuesday, July 27. His death is an unbelievable tragedy--one that is felt by the community, state, and region.

Officer Bialke always wanted to help others. After graduating from Rasmussen College, he moved to Bemidji and joined the Red Lake Nation Police Department, where he served the community for the past six years. He was an SOR officer, a breacher for the Emergency Response Team, and in charge of the Search and Rescue Dive Team. He was dedicated to the community in which he worked, often spending time with Red Lake's children and families--always willing to go the extra mile.

He is survived by his wife, Hester, his children, his mother and brothers, and many other family members and friends. He is lovingly remembered as a kind, outgoing person who loved hockey, fishing, hunting, road trips, country music, and spending time with his family, friends, and other loved ones. He will be sorely missed.

I am eternally grateful for Officer Bialke's sacrifice, and the sacrifices the men and women of law enforcement make every day as they put their lives on the line to keep us safe.

Mr. Speaker, most of Minnesota is in extreme drought, and many of our farmers are facing a tremendous hardship.

There are reports that herd culling is already being done around the region due to the lack of quality feed, and farmers will soon be forced to make impossible decisions regarding their crops and livestock.

The situation is serious and demands our attention. I have asked the administration to allow emergency haying and grazing on CRP lands now, but that request was met with silence.

If the drought continues to worsen, and if the administration does not act, the impacts on our economy will be far-reaching.

In the meantime, I stand ready to assist my constituents in navigating these challenges and working toward quick recovery.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 503, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There is no doubt that what transpired on January 6 was a dark day, but instead of a good-faith effort to reach an objective conclusion, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have placed partisan, divisive politics ahead of the interests of the American people.

Most fundamental to any objective investigation is being free from political influence and partisan bias. Unfortunately, this resolution fails to meet that basic benchmark, as Democrats refuse to put together a truly bipartisan commission, with equal authority given to all members, not just the majority.

It appears my colleagues are more interested in reaching the predetermined outcome of their own narrative than truly investigating the January 6 attack. The resolution itself is full of charged language that implies an outcome.

In fact, two bipartisan committees in the Senate have already conducted wide-ranging investigations and issued their joint report. Their report, which is more than 100 pages, outlines a timeline of events and a series of recommendations for moving forward.

The Architect of the Capitol has also already been given $10 million to investigate the security failures on January 6. Why are we replicating that work?

The Department of Justice and the FBI have already arrested and charged more than 500 people for crimes ranging from disorderly conduct to theft of government property to assaulting a Federal law enforcement officer. Those individuals are being adjudicated by the courts as we speak. That process will continue for some time. That is the way it should work.

Instead, Democrats are injecting partisanship into the equation, hoping to stretch out an investigation long enough to distract from their abject failure to govern, while the American people are left to suffer the consequences of that failure.

While we spend time discussing this partisan committee, American farmers are facing a severe drought, gas prices are going up, inflation is rising, businesses can't find employees, and there is a crisis at the southern border. We need to spend our time finding solutions and helping Americans, not creating partisan commissions to do work that has already been done competently by the U.S. Senate and by law enforcement.

Not only would this select committee not prohibit interfering with ongoing law enforcement investigations that are already yielding significant results, but it would lack the enforcement powers of those existing investigations. Even worse, Speaker Pelosi would have the ability to handpick the entirety of the committee.

If Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats were serious about this, they might have considered acting sooner than 6 months after the fact. The standing committees of this body already have the jurisdiction and the authority to investigate January 6, and the Speaker could have directed them to open an investigation at any time.

But perhaps most important is our obligation to the brave men and women of law enforcement who responded to the Capitol and surrounding areas on January 6, members of the U.S. Capitol Police, the D.C. Metropolitan Police, the National Guard, and the many other State and Federal agencies who assisted in restoring order. We owe it to them to ensure that any investigation we undertake is one that is fair, bipartisan, and honorable, absent the ulterior motives and partisan politics that so often plague us.

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, H. Res. 503 falls far short. For that reason,

I oppose the legislation, and I urge other Members to do so.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will remind the gentleman from Mississippi that it was not this body that stopped the commission. It did not receive the required support from both sides of the aisle in the Senate to move forward.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Massachusetts continues talking about how this select committee has been modeled after the Select Committee on Benghazi, but ``modeled'' is a very loose term, given that this committee obviously has a far more skewed ratio than the Benghazi committee did.

In addition to that, this committee can all be appointed by the Speaker. In her own words, she agreed that, yes, she could appoint them all. In the Select Committee on Benghazi, there were recommendations taken from the minority to the majority in order to appoint that membership.

So to say that this has been modeled after Benghazi, maybe because they have the name ``select committee,'' and that is the model they use, but certainly the membership and the makeup of this is not the bipartisan issue that it was on the Select Committee on Benghazi.

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to some of my colleagues on the other side, and you would think that nothing is being done to investigate the January 6 attack, and that is wrong.

In addition to the bipartisan Senate investigation that has already been mentioned, numerous other investigations are under way by both law enforcement and congressional bodies.

And as I have mentioned, we have already allocated $10 million for the Architect of the Capitol to investigate what went wrong that day, and law enforcement continues to conduct its investigation.

The majority ignores the fact that more than 500 individuals--which has been mentioned several times--have been arrested or charged in connection with the January 6 attack, and that investigation will likely continue for some time.

Instead of ignoring legitimate investigations and launching one of partisan politics, we ought to let the processes that are already underway continue. If we don't, we risk undermining the work that is already being done.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to comment a little on the comments regarding the makeup of the select committee.

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that when Speaker Pelosi was asked if she could veto Republican picks for the select committee, Speaker Pelosi responded: Yes, we will see who they nominate.

That opens the door for the committee's work to be corrupted even before it begins, and she continues to have full control over the members of that committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, our country is facing enormous challenges, but instead of addressing those challenges, we are focused on duplicating work that has already been done. And I have to repeat that. These investigations have been done and are ongoing. And it appears as though this select committee is being done purely for political purposes.

In early June, two Senate committees issued a joint report focusing on ``security, planning, and response failures related to the violence and unprecedented attack on January 6.''

That report was signed by Democrats and Republicans, and it included a comprehensive audit of the security, intelligence, and authority failures of that day. It also included substantive recommendations for moving forward, including tangible action items that can be addressed by this Congress.

But instead of working in tandem with our Senate counterparts, Democrats want to politicize this issue even further. At a time when the American people have little trust in the government, we need to be working to restore that trust. Unfortunately, this kind of partisan move will not advance that shared goal.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the bipartisan Senate Homeland Security report.

Examining the U.S. Capitol Attack: A Review of the Security, Planning,

and Response Failures on January 6

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

U.S. Senator Gary Peters, Chair,

U.S. Senator Rob Portman, Ranking Member.

Committee on Rules and Administration

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, Chair,

U.S. Senator Roy Blunt, Ranking Member.

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

Madam Speaker, I know we do live in a highly polarized time, but despite the partisanship that so often plagues the House of Representatives, there is no reason this select committee should not be wholly bipartisan. In fact, that is what the American people demand.

Unfortunately, the resolution ensures that bipartisanship will not happen. The result will be a divided report focused more on a narrative than a solution, and that is why I asked that we

submit that Senate report as part of the Record.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

Madam Speaker, that is it.

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

Madam Speaker, I oppose H. Res. 503. The events of January 6 were tragic in so many ways and certainly demand a real investigation, but bipartisan investigations have already taken place in the Senate, and law enforcement also continues to investigate.

We all share the concern for what happened here in Washington, D.C., on that day, and it can never happen again. But unless Democrats abandon their desires for a predetermined outcome, we are doing the American people a disservice.

Moving forward and making sure that it never happens again requires a fully bipartisan solution, not a partisan committee rigged from the start. This resolution is rife with partisan politics at its worst.

Madam Speaker, I urge Members to oppose H. Res. 503, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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