Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When Americans from across the country come to visit their Capitol, they are greeted by statues of some of the most influential men and women in our Nation's history: American trailblazers like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln, who happens to hail from my home State of Illinois. I am proud to serve as the Representative of our 16th President's former home, tomb, and the old State Capitol where President Lincoln delivered his House Divided speech in 1858. In that speech, Lincoln spoke out against slavery, including the Dred Scott decision, and delivered one of his most profound statements.

I will quote the President, ``A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved--I do not expect the house to fall--but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.''

While I am proud to hail from the land of Lincoln and see him, among others, who have fought for freedom represented in our Capitol, I also recognize that there are some symbols that were donated nearly 100 years ago that are not representative of our Nation today, a Nation that learns from our past and continues to strive to be a more perfect Union.

For anyone watching today's floor debate, it probably sounds familiar. That is because we voted at least twice in the last 2 years on legislation that would remove the bust of Roger B. Taney from the Old Supreme Court Chamber, and it is a move that I support, but previous legislation has gone nowhere in the Senate because its scope was much larger and aimed to remove several statues beyond that of Mr. Taney.

While I can appreciate that the bill before us today is more narrow in scope and that we are continuing the important discussion about which statues belong in the U.S. Capitol, I am disappointed that this bill didn't go through regular order and didn't go through the regular legislative process and come before the Committee on House Administration that is the committee that has jurisdiction over this issue.

Furthermore, this bill directs the Joint Committee on the Library to carry out the removal of the Taney bust. I point out, though, how antiquated the Joint Committee on the Library has become. It only meets once per Congress to organize, and any actual work of the committee is carried out by the Committee on House Administration and the Senate Rules Committees. Moving forward, I think we need to examine the effectiveness of the joint committee remaining in its current form.

I support removing the bust of Taney and believe statues like his only divide us as a Nation and do not represent the freedoms so many Americans have fought and died for.

It is also important to take a moment to reflect on the fact that for the past 1,005 days, these halls, while getting more people more recently, have been largely closed to the public. And many Americans have not had the opportunity to come visit their Member of Congress nor appreciate all the history, the art, and the statues that are displayed in the Capitol.

That being said, I look forward to the people's House fully opening come January 3 under a new majority.

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

Mr. Speaker, before my good friend from Maryland leaves the floor, I want to ensure that something is entered into the Congressional Record.

That I, Rodney Davis from Illinois, was minus 3 years old when my good friend, Mr. Hoyer, was sworn into the Maryland State Senate. To have a friend like Steny Hoyer, to be able to go out, like I am here in a few weeks, knowing that you have a bipartisan piece of legislation like this that is going to make Taney a gone-y when it comes to the statues here in the U.S. Capitol, and to know that we are talking and being able to have that bipartisan conversation is what I came here to do.

Steny, I know I am not supposed to address you here, but I am glad to yield to you if you would like to say something.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his friendship.

I thank him for sparring with me over many issues over the years. We have had a great time with that. There is one thing I know about Leader Hoyer and a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here, they have a great sense of humor. They enjoy the ability to get to know one another on a humorous, friendly level. That allows us, in my opinion, to be able to get to know each other better, to govern together. Today is going to be a great example of that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting a bit. I sent a text to my colleague from North Carolina, who is supposed to come down. I apologize if this extends the votes this evening, but I don't think we will know the difference between 10:30 and 10:35. We will be all right.

This is a day, too, that I remind my colleagues and say thank you for working with the Senate to narrow the scope of this bill to the egregious statue that we talked about today, and that is of Roger Taney.

Roger Taney helped create in our Nation's history one of the most disgusting Supreme Court decisions that we have ever seen.

But in the end, it was the leadership of people like Abraham Lincoln, who represented my great State of Illinois and some of the counties that I currently represent right here in this institution, it was his leadership that he learned here in the House that he was able to then take on his path to become President at the most consequential time in our Nation's history.

The history of Abraham Lincoln and the leadership it took from him and the dedication it took to end the vile practice of slavery in this country, it is leadership and that historical lesson that we need to continue to teach for generations to come.

My colleague from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) talked about teaching about the bad decisions of people like Roger Taney in courts all across this country and institutions all across this country decades and centuries ago. They belong in our textbooks, and they belong in our history lessons.

This is my fear, Mr. Speaker. My fear is that we are forgetting that even the darkest parts of our Nation's history, the darkest parts of the Civil War, the darkest parts of world history, need to be taught, or many in future generations will forget how far we have come.

They will forget how, right now, the leadership and the dedication of so many people like Thurgood Marshall, Abraham Lincoln, and so many others that have served here in our government and throughout this country put us where we are today, where we have the most diverse Congress in our Nation's history.

We are the House that is representative of the people. Diversity is seen everywhere you turn here in this institution and on this floor.

That is, in part, because people stepped up like Abraham Lincoln after the dreadful Dred Scott decision and said enough is enough and corrected bad parts of our history.

But now, in today's day and age, you see people who didn't get the textbooks that taught all the history, didn't get the history lessons that they needed, defacing and destroying statues of Abraham Lincoln. Wow.

We have to be very careful that we don't let political correctness and uneducated decisions be put forth that will then inspire individuals to think that somehow every great leader in our Nation who is remembered with a statue in communities, even outside this Capitol and throughout our great Nation, are part of a problem. We need to do a better job.

That is the reason we need to open this Capitol back up. Part of the best education to understand our Nation's history is allowing Americans to get back into our hallways to be able to see the statues that we debate about here on the floor.

We can't educate the future leaders of America on the history of our government if they can't see, feel, and touch the history that exists right here in our Capitol.

Today, this bill that we are going to pass is a good thing. Tomorrow, and long after I am gone, my fear is that we will continue to have legislation put forward that will, unfortunately, go a lot further than removing the bust of Roger Taney. Let us, as Americans, be very careful.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my colleague has another speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is inspiring to hear my colleagues from both sides of the aisle throughout any debate talk about their passions, talk about what matters most to their constituents. Mr. Green has always been passionate about what matters most to his constituents, as I hope I have been over the last 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I have to apologize. This might be one of the last times that I stand up and offer remarks on the House floor. A lot of my colleagues here must have been praying together because finally, finally, I have lost my voice. I sound like Peter Brady from ``The Brady Bunch.'' My apologies.

I am so thankful for the friendships that I have been able to make over the 10 years that I have served in this institution. But I want to make sure that I address some issues that we are talking about today in regard to statue removals, in regard to how we ensure that history, even all the darkest parts, are taught to all Americans, because that is the way we learn.

I learned, because I lived it, Abraham Lincoln's history. I take for granted what we have available in my district that epitomizes the strength of Abraham Lincoln.

If you ever want to see our Nation's history in action, I invite you. Come to my district, and I will take you to the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, where many of my colleagues that have come and taken me up on that offer have been able to walk into a room and see an original copy, an original. They didn't have Xerox machines or copy machines back then. They had to handwrite the original copies of the Emancipation Proclamation.

That is what Abraham Lincoln means to our Nation's history and society's history and the ills that even existed after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated.

We have to do better in this country. We can do better, and we are doing better. But in the end, we live in the greatest country in the history of the world that sends the most diverse people to our Nation's Capitol to stand here and debate freely how to govern our great Nation.

We will fight, and we will argue, but in the end, we will shake hands, disagree, walk away, and understand that we are better because we are not separated. We are not just Republicans and Democrats; we are Americans.

When tragedy hits the country, we come together in this House, and we stand together as Americans. I hope that continues even in the more polarizing environment that we have seen in this House in my lifetime.

I want to make a prediction that I hope doesn't come true. I hope that we can change that by setting an example in this House. I hope we don't try to continue to separate ourselves. I predict there will come a day when people will be allowed into a restaurant based upon their political affiliation or not. That is sad. I hope I am wrong.

I see so many opportunities in our Nation right now that are taken by those who don't want us to believe in each other. They are taken away by social media posts that will continue to try and divide us.

I came here 10 years ago and got the ability to have dinner when I was in freshman orientation in Statuary Hall. I looked down and saw the plaque that sits in Statuary Hall that says Abraham Lincoln, his desk sits here, when he served one term in the House of Representatives.

It hit me that day. It sent chills that I have some pretty big shoes to fill, representing some of the same geography that Abraham Lincoln did when he was here centuries ago.

I knew we had a lot of work to do, and I will tell you, this institution has done big things over my decade serving here.

There are things like this, though, that I hope send a message to our Nation that we will stand up against those parts of our Nation's history like Roger Taney, the most dreadful parts of our Nation's history.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone, especially my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to please ensure that history continues to be taught in our Nation's schools, that we learn about people like Roger Taney so that people in America don't repeat the same disastrous decisions that we saw happen with the Dred Scott decision.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough. I support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Chairperson Lofgren of the House Administration Committee, for her work on this legislation. I will tell the chair that while we didn't always agree on issues coming in front of our committee, and we didn't always agree on how to run this institution, I always enjoyed being able to serve with her. It may not be reciprocated, but that is okay.

But in the end, you have a great team that I really enjoyed working with. I sincerely hope that this institution becomes less polarized. I certainly hope this institution becomes an institution where we can all govern together and make this country even greater than it is today.

Vote for this bill.

Let's get rid of Roger Taney.

Let's make him a gone-y once again.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3875, the Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act of 2022, which amends the Stafford Act to include a section on natural disaster risk assessment.

This bill's intent is to make the public more aware of the inherent risks of disasters that may affect their communities.

It directs the President, or FEMA, to maintain a publicly available risk assessment program that shows what hazards pose the most threat to communities. It also directs the President, or FEMA, to provide financial or technical assistance to communities in designated community disaster resilience zones.

Establishing these zones will help communities, States, and the private sector better plan investments in mitigation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

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

My colleague, the chair of the subcommittee I have been blessed to serve on as ranking member, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I thank her for working with us in a bipartisan way to move this bill forward.

Disaster resiliency matters in a district like mine that encompasses the Illinois and Mississippi River Basin. We see disasters on a regular basis. In fact, when I got to this institution 10 years ago, one of the first votes I had to make was on funding Superstorm Sandy relief. I remember saying the first time that I had a chance to talk about disaster assistance, as a brand new freshman, my comments were if the Federal Government should do something right, it is helping communities recover from disasters that they had no control over.

This is another good bipartisan step to making sure that happens in communities all across this Nation, from Montana to Washington, D.C., to Illinois and elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this fine piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I also rise in support of S. 3499, which amends the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. This bill repeals outdated Department of Homeland Security contracting requirements that set a limit of 65 percent for subcontracting costs.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2009 established a subcontracting cost limit at 70 percent. Unfortunately, these conflicting limits have just created confusion for contractors in emergency response and recovery efforts since then.

Repealing this obsolete provision will make subcontracting cost limits consistent with the rest of the Federal contracting regime.

Mr. Speaker, I remind you that these are not issues that are going to make the 24-hour news cycle, but it is fixing broken pieces of the bureaucracy right here in this institution that can actually help communities recover faster.

If we don't address issues that aren't newsworthy according to the media experts, then we waste taxpayer dollars, we don't help communities recover, and we don't make government work for the people. I am proud to stand here and say I am a conservative when it comes to fixing government bureaucracy, and this is one of those fixes that we are putting forth today, in conjunction with the other side, in conjunction with the Senate.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, again, this fixes the Federal bureaucracy that was broken back post-Katrina. I was a congressional staffer in 2005 when we all watched in horror what happened to Louisiana and the Gulf Coast because of that tragic storm.

Provisions that were put in place post-Katrina in 2006, during the Bush presidency and into the Obama administration in 2009, long before I ever got here to the House floor, we are now fixing the inconsistencies, making government work for the people, and making government work for every single American who is going to be affected by a future disaster. That is everywhere. That is Montana, that is Illinois, and that is D.C. Every single place in the United States and our territories will be impacted positively by this consistent change to the bureaucracy through the procurement process that needed to be done years ago and is going to be done today because of the leadership of our Senate sponsors and also the leaders on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and my colleague, Ms. Norton.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my friend, Karen Sutton, who recently passed away after a long, hard fight with cancer.

Karen spent much of her life in Springfield and was a valued member of our community, always volunteering and attending events all the way up to a few weeks before she passed.

After a long and successful career in data processing, Karen retired from the Illinois Department of Health in 2002.

Karen spent much of her time in the bowling alley, playing in multiple leagues and eventually becoming the league secretary.

Karen also enjoyed traveling to national Mustang shows, where she won many awards. These shows, put on by the Mustang Club of America, allowed Karen to connect with the community of drivers from all over the Nation, whom she greatly valued. She was also praised for her hard work in helping the judging secretaries during these fun yet competitive events.

I am grateful to have known Karen and her husband, Carroll, for many years, and I am thankful for all of her work to make our community a better place to live.

Karen is survived by her husband, Carroll; daughter, Julie; and son, Brent. My condolences to the entire Sutton family during this difficult time.

Karen, may you rest in peace.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize my friend from Decatur, Illinois, Howard Buffett, and his foundation, The Howard G. Buffett Foundation, for their work to rebuild communities and the agriculture sector in Ukraine in light of Russia's invasion of the country.

Howard has donated millions to help provide food, shelter, and transportation to the citizens of Ukraine. He has also worked with John Deere, also headquartered in Illinois, to provide storage, transportation, and equipment to farmers to bolster agriculture in Ukraine.

Ukraine is one of the top producers and exporters supplying grain and oilseed to countries across the globe. Howard's work not only helps farmers in Ukraine, but it also helps bolster food security and national security across the globe and here at home in the United States. President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy awarded Howard with the Order of Yaroslav the Wise of the V degree for his significant merits in strengthening interstate cooperation, supporting the state sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and a significant contribution to the popularization of the Ukrainian state in the world.

I admire Howard and his willingness to help others in times of crisis throughout his life, whether it's helping to address food insecurity, human trafficking, global conflicts or projects in our backyard. Howard has always been a generous neighbor and friend helping with projects throughout Macon County. I admire his work and dedication to making the world a better place.

I thank Howard for all his work and friendship.

Madam Speaker, today, I would like to commemorate the 160th anniversary of the Beer Institute, one of our nation's oldest trade associations, which represents the $331 billion beer industry--an industry that employs more than two million Americans. Founded on November 12, 1862, the Beer Institute has advocated on behalf of the beer industry for nearly two-thirds of our nation's history. As a Beer Institute 2022 Beer Champion myself, I am proud of my long and accomplished relationship with the Institute and have genuinely enjoyed the many years of advocating with the Institute for such a vital and growing industry.

160 years ago--amid the Civil War--representatives from 37 breweries met in New York City to address a new federal excise tax on beer to fund the war effort. With a primary focus on fair taxation, they formed the United States Brewers Association (USBA). In 1920, when the federal government instituted Prohibition, the USBA worked with brewers to adapt to and survive these changing political realities. Thankfully, in 1933, Prohibition was repealed under the leadership of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Following the close of the Second World War, the beer industry wanted to demonstrate that beer has a place in everyday life. The USBA launched an iconic advertising campaign, ``Beer Belongs,'' which depicted men and women enjoying beer as an integral part of the American way of life. The middle of the 20th century also saw the advent of light beer and aluminum cans, which changed the face of the industry we know today.

The USBA officially reorganized into the Beer Institute in 1986, opening membership to beer importers and industry suppliers. With a new name and infrastructure, the Beer Institute was ready to take on the challenges of the 21st century.

Today, the Beer Institute continues to advocate for sound public policy and fair tax and regulatory frameworks for brewers and beer importers. True to its roots, the Beer Institute was pivotal in the passage of the Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act, a bill which I cosponsored and strongly supported. This legislation provided a historic excise tax reduction for brewers and importers of all sizes, reaffirmed that not all alcohol beverages are the same and allowed them to reinvest in their businesses and their people. The Beer Institute also takes a leadership role in promoting responsible alcohol advertising and marketing, as well as the moderate consumption of alcohol, including an increasing number of low- and no-alcohol beers.

I am proud of the beer industry's massive economic and cultural impact on our nation. As a man who enjoys a cold American-made beer, specifically Busch Light, I am forever grateful for the Beer Institute's long and storied history of supporting one of our nation's most cherished industries. I offer them the best for the next 160 years. Cheers.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my good friend Katie Fraley. She influenced countless students over four decades in the classroom and was an enthusiastic force in the civic life of the Taylorville community.

Katie worked to earn a master's degree in education from the University of Illinois by attending night school in Springfield and summer school in Champaign, while teaching school in Taylorville and raising her young daughter.

For nearly 40 years, she taught fourth grade at North Elementary School, where she arrived every day flamboyantly dressed and raring to go. She cared deeply about her students and took great pride in their accomplishments in the classroom and in all stages of their lives. She was known for directing the school's Christmas musicals, holding an annual Hawaiian luau, and instructing students in the fine art of assembling scrapbooks about Abraham Lincoln.

After 41 years in the classroom, Katie ``retired'', leaving teaching but not education. She was elected to three four-year terms on the Taylorville School Board. Her vision was for the school district to build a fine arts center, a goal that that is now in early planning and fundraising phases. She was an energetic fixture in many facets of community life and was involved with the Taylorville First United Methodist Church, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the P.E.O., an international women's education and advocacy organization.

She is survived by her husband of 55 years, Vance Fraley, of Taylorville, her children Karen, Lenee, Derek, and Lena, and many grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and countless former students who have said that she was an influential figure in their education and in their lives.

The Taylorville community won't be the same without Katie. Rest in Peace, my friend.

Madam Speaker, I must say that I am perplexed by the Chairwoman's statements on the COCOA Act. Her interpretation of the COCOA Act is misleading and inaccurate. There have been instances in past election cycles where election officials were not aware of Congress' role and responsibility in having its own observers on site to watch the election administration process and, as a result, were denied access. As I stated earlier, this bill fixes a bi-partisan problem by providing a citation of convenience for existing law that gives the House authority to deploy official observers to watch the conduct of congressional elections in the States and territories. This way, there is no question regarding Congress' authority to have observers present.

To my surprise, the Chairwoman identifies two late breaking concerns she has with the bill. First, she states that while the bill provides broad authority to Congress, it fails to provide election officials with the ability to protect personally identifiable information. This concern appears to be a novel one, particularly in light of the long history of the Congressional observer program. We certainly would have welcomed the opportunity to discuss it further in our multiple efforts to work with majority staff on this topic.

Second, the Chairwoman expresses concern over an election official's inability to remove congressional observers that are disruptive to the process. Contrary to the Chairwoman's statement, the bill outlines the role of congressional observers and specifically prohibits these individuals from handling ballots, elections equipment, advocating for a position or candidate, taking any action to reduce ballot secrecy, or otherwise interfering with the elections administration process. The bill also permits state and local authorities to remove any observer who misbehaves. As such, state and local election officials across the country would have appropriate protections in place and should not be distressed by the presence of congressional observers.

Over the course of the past two years, my staff made a concerted effort to engage majority staff on the COCOA Act as we view this as a bi-partisan measure. We provided draft language to them for review. They did not reference either of the aforementioned concerns or flag any language that they believed to be problematic in the few conversations we had with them. My staff repeatedly offered to confer on any issue that majority staff may have with the bill and received nothing but radio silence.

It is important to note that we had an initial agreement in principle to move the COCOA Act together with the PAVA Act. However, at the eleventh hour, the majority reneged on our agreement in principle to move the COCOA Act forward. Again, here on the House Floor is the first time we are learning of any issues with the bill

This bill benefits both sides of the aisle and serves as an additional layer of transparency and integrity in the elections process. I am concerned that, without the COCOA Act in place this fall, the majority and minority's ability to execute this House's constitutional responsibility will continue to face serious challenges.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the World Dog Alliance.

Over 30 million dogs are slaughtered for food every year, among which 70 percent are stolen pets. The World Dog Alliance (WDA), an international animal welfare organization dedicated to promoting an explicit ban on dog and cat meat, has campaigned for a ground-breaking ``Dog and Cat Diplomacy''. The WDA is working with governments around the world to eradicate this horrific practice through legislation and international cooperation.

The WDA was founded in 2014 by Genlin. His philosophy is to ``change human society, save dogs and cats''. To achieve his vision, Genlin is working hard to set up the international agreement to prohibit the eating of dog and cat meat. His efforts have led to international attention to the dog and cat meat issue. Since the domestic dog and cat meat ban was passed in the 2018 Farm Bill (H.R. 2, Sec. 12515), Congress has called on the administration to initiate the International Agreement to Prohibit the Eating of Dogs and Cats proposed by the WDA. I am hopeful that we can get this done.

I thank Genlin and the World Dog Alliance for all the hard work they put in daily. Know that it is recognized and greatly appreciated.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my good friend John Galer. On October 8th, Mr. Galer was named the chairman of the National Newspaper Association.

John owns The Journal-News and several other publications in Central Illinois. As the publisher of 10 newspapers in the area, John clearly has had a highly successful career and is a respected leader in the newspaper community.

The Galer family came to The Journal in 1945 when John's grandfather, Del, took over production management duties. John's father, Phillip Galer, purchased The Journal's first offset press in 1968. He and John helped expand the business during the 1970s and 1980s. In 2004, John and his wife, Susan, bought the Montgomery County News, also in Hillsboro, and merged that publication and staff into The Journal operation. The Journal-News, a 6,000-circulation, twice weekly, has been well received throughout the community and is a community advocate.

John received the Illinois Press Association Distinguished Service Award in 2017. He also gives his time to numerous civic, foundation and charity organizations. Mr. Galer also is a member of Image Hillsboro, a nonprofit seeking to revitalize the town through economic and community initiatives.

I have no doubt John will continue to thrive in his new leadership position as the chairman of the National Newspaper Association, and I wish nothing but the best for my friend. The National Newspaper Association is in good hands under John's new leadership.

Madam Speaker, I must say that I am perplexed by the Chairwoman's statements on the COCOA Act. Her interpretation of the COCOA Act is misleading and inaccurate. There have been instances in past election cycles where election officials were not aware of Congress' role and responsibility in having its own observers on site to watch the election administration process and, as a result, were denied access. As I stated earlier, this bill fixes a bi-partisan problem by providing a citation of convenience for existing law that gives the House authority to deploy official observers to watch the conduct of congressional elections in the States and territories. This way, there is no question regarding Congress' authority to have observers present.

To my surprise, the Chairwoman identifies two late breaking concerns she has with the bill. First, she states that while the bill provides broad authority to Congress, it fails to provide election officials with the ability to protect personally identifiable information. This concern appears to be a novel one, particularly in light of the long history of the Congressional observer program. We certainly would have welcomed the opportunity to discuss it further in our multiple efforts to work with majority staff on this topic.

Second, the Chairwoman expresses concern over an election official's inability to remove congressional observers that are disruptive to the process. Contrary to the Chairwoman's statement, the bill outlines the role of congressional observers and specifically prohibits these individuals from handling ballots, elections equipment, advocating for a position or candidate, taking any action to reduce ballot secrecy, or otherwise interfering with the elections administration process. The bill also permits state and local authorities to remove any observer who misbehaves. As such, state and local election officials across the country would have appropriate protections in place and should not be distressed by the presence of congressional observers.

Over the course of the past two years, my staff made a concerted effort to engage majority staff on the COCOA Act as we view this as a bi-partisan measure. We provided draft language to them for review. They did not reference either of the aforementioned concerns or flag any language that they believed to be problematic in the few conversations we had with them. My staff repeatedly offered to confer on any issue that majority staff may have with the bill and received nothing but radio silence.

It is important to note that we had an initial agreement in principle to move the COCOA Act together with the PAVA Act. However, at the eleventh hour, the majority reneged on our agreement in principle to move the COCOA Act forward. Again, here on the House Floor is the first time we are learning of any issues with the bill.

This bill benefits both sides of the aisle and serves as an additional layer of transparency and integrity in the elections process. I am concerned that, without the COCOA Act in place this fall, the majority and minority's ability to execute this House's constitutional responsibility will continue to face serious challenges.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to share the somber news of the passing of a member of our United States Capitol Police, Officer William Thomas, who succumbed to his fight against cancer early last week.

Members and staff know the level of service and sacrifice a U.S. Capitol Police officer commits to every day that they report to duty. We are aware of the threats they face and the inherent risk of their position. We are all indebted to the security they provide as we walk by them at every door and throughout the Capitol. But we often forget the private battles that they may be fighting.

Officer Thomas served Congress as a member of the U.S. Capitol Police for 14 years, first assigned to the Senate division in 2008, and then detailed to the communications team in June of 2021. As he continued to serve the Capitol community, his department, and his country, he received his diagnosis of cancer.

Officer Thomas continued to put on his uniform and badge. The U.S. Capitol Police is built of individuals who inspire me by their unparalleled level of service and bravery. Officer William Thomas was one of those individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my sincerest condolences to his family and his friends, as well as the officers and staff of the U.S. Capitol Police Department of whom many worked by his side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 4791, a bill that will establish a 10-year term limit for the Director of the Government Publishing Office.

I thank my friend in the Senate, Senator Roy Blunt, for introducing this bill earlier this month, and for the Senate's quick action on it. Although a change to a term limit may seem inconsequential, I would like to encourage my colleagues that this is a bill that will greatly benefit the entire legislative branch.

The GPO plays a vital role for our Congress. As the original ``Government's Printer,'' the agency has supported the House and the Senate for over 160 years. Although Americans engage with their government in much different ways than they did in 1861 when the GPO first opened its door, the agency has adapted. It has upheld its vision to achieve an ``America Informed'' by updating processes, technology, products, and even its name, to meet the needs of Americans today.

Much of the strategic success over time can be pinned down to two driving forces: Congress keeping GPO accountable to the needs of the institution, and strong agency leadership.

Today, we find ourselves at a time when GPO is under the strongest leadership it has seen in decades. Director Hugh Halpern is a man whose career was shaped in the House of Representatives. From working on numerous House committees, including the Rules Committee, to being Director of Floor Operations, Hugh knows our institution and has taken that knowledge to the GPO.

In the time since his appointment, he has greatly increased the transparency of the GPO, of course, with congressional oversight; has launched numerous modernization initiatives to ensure that GPO products truly serve Congress and the American people; and got GPO back to work faster than any other legislative branch agency as we overcame the pandemic.

The strategic plan GPO has in place is setting a course of predictable and accountable progress, a plan that should be supported by stable leadership. Right now, GPO is unlike other legislative branch agencies in not having a set term for its director. S. 4791 corrects that and aligns the GPO director position with its counterparts by establishing a 10-year term limit.

Not only does this strengthen the agency by increasing institutional stability, but it also reinforces that the Director of the GPO serves Congress and the American people, not the executive branch.

I am thankful for Director Halpern's leadership and innovation at the GPO, and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation to further the GPO's accountability to this institution.

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

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

I actually have some time left myself and was debating on what to talk about. I don't really have anything to talk about with successful fantasy football teams this weekend, so I am actually glad that my colleague brought up the Electoral College Act.

What we saw in the Senate were some changes to their legislation that we had requested the House majority do when that bill passed the House last week, so I am excited to see those changes in the Senate.

I am excited that the chairperson mentioned during our rules debate last week that maybe we could have a conference committee. That is a chance for bipartisan agreement on a very important issue, so I look forward to seeing whether that opportunity presents itself.

But as we stand here today, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to put the Government Publishing Office Director in line with every other executive branch appointed legislative branch employee, like the Architect of the Capitol, like the Librarian of Congress.

What is happening at the GPO has garnered bipartisan support today, and we need to continue to see that progress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a different day here on the House floor for a debate over a bill with Committee on House Administration jurisdiction. I once again agree with the majority that this is a good piece of legislation, albeit I was a little concerned when my colleague just mentioned that officials in California and Illinois support this bill. I had to take a step back and realize, well, maybe I will talk to my team about who those officials are before I offer my wholehearted support.

But in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, as part of the Help America Vote Act created in 2002, Congress authorized funding for the Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access program to help ensure every eligible American, regardless of their abilities, can participate in the election process and cast their ballot privately and independently.

Funds for the PAVA program are currently allocated to only 55 of 57 legally established protection and advocacy systems across the country. The bill today makes an important correction to ensure that both the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the American Indian consortium are included as eligible recipients for the first time.

This bill, as mentioned by my colleague, sponsored by my good friend, Senator Roy Blunt, passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and Republicans on the Committee on House Administration are supportive of these changes and have no issues with the bill.

To be honest, I am somewhat disappointed that my colleagues in the majority on the Committee on House Administration have chosen not to pass this bill under suspension. For months, our staffs have been working together to pair the PAVA Program Inclusion Act with H.R. 8517, the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act, a noncontroversial bill brought forward by Subcommittee on Elections Ranking Member Bryan Steil.

Both bills make nonpartisan, noncontroversial amendments to HAVA. Mr. Steil's bill doesn't change Federal law or practice but simply provides a citation of convenience for existing law that gives the House authority to deploy official observers to watch the conduct of congressional elections in the States and territories.

Both Democrats and Republicans have long deployed House staff as election observers to monitor congressional elections. Sometimes, our observers have had access difficulties, including in a widely publicized event in Maricopa County, Arizona, 2 years ago.

So, we listened when many State and local election officials asked Congress to speak more clearly about this constitutional exercise so they can more readily provide access for our observers, which is why our committee staffs had agreed in principle to move both bills together.

That was until just a few weeks ago when the Democrats' staff said they had issues. But when my staff reached out, they couldn't say what those issues were and met my staff with silence.

We gave Democrats another opportunity to bring these bills up together during Rules Committee earlier this week when Mr. Steil offered an amendment to include his election observer bill, but it was rejected along party lines.

Now, we are here on the House floor talking about a bill that should have passed under suspension alongside Congressman Steil's commonsense bill to ensure integrity and faith in our elections.

While I will support the bill before us today, I urge my Democrat colleagues in the majority to quickly bring forward the Confirmation of Congressional Observer Access Act for a vote, as well.

I was encouraged by comments earlier this week at the Committee on

Rules by my good friend, the chair of the Subcommittee on Elections, Congressman G.K. Butterfield, about Mr. Steil's good piece of legislation and continue to hope we can work together on a bipartisan basis to make it law.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, could I make a quick point of personal privilege?

Is there any way to get the time of that ``magic minute'' this time? I want to sign a printout from the Congressional Record for my good friend from Maryland.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask Majority Leader Hoyer about his time.

I have somewhat become used to being the antagonist to some of the majority's legislation when it comes to election administration, which I think has been so shortsighted on its impact to the American people. But this is one of those opportunities where we see good legislation come from the Senate, and this is an opportunity for us to show the American people that Republicans and Democrats can get along and pass important bills that are going to positively impact those who are disabled, and ensure that every single person who may be dealing with a disability in this country and in our territories has the right to vote, the eligibility to vote, and the opportunity to vote. That is what this bill does.

Really, I have got to thank again my colleague, Roy Blunt, Senator Blunt, who used to be in leadership in this institution, as many of us know and remember so well. I thank him for bringing Republicans and Democrats on the House Administration Committee and Leader Hoyer and I together on this very important issue.

I wish he would have come in earlier on some other issues, we might have had a little more bipartisan agreement. I will have to talk to him about that and ask him why he didn't do that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends, Leader Hoyer and Chairperson Lofgren, and I thank the staff for pushing this important bill forward.

I am disappointed and optimistic that we did not get the election observer fixes that both parties want and need and election administrators throughout the country have asked us to address. I am disappointed that was not part of a suspension agreement, where this bill should have been. I am cautiously optimistic with the great opportunity for bipartisanship that we are seeing here today that maybe it can continue after today. I won't hold my breath, but I will continue to remain optimistic and, hopefully, see that moving forward very quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Steil for his remarks, and I thank Leader Hoyer and, also, again, my good friend, Mr. Blunt, for all their hard work.

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

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

This is the first time we have heard these concerns, on the House floor today. We have not had any discussion between our staffs. I would have loved to have worked through some of these.