Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Springfield's own Dick Schofield. Dick passed away recently at age 87. He was the grandfather of my good friend Jayson Werth.

Schofield was an accomplished baseball star, spending 19 seasons in the major leagues with seven organizations. Schofield's baseball career began at Springfield High School. Just weeks after graduating, he reported to the St. Louis Cardinals. In 1960, he became a World Series champion as a pivotal member of the Pittsburgh Pirates.

Dick is one of four generations in his family to play professional baseball. He followed in his father Ducky's footsteps, and both his son Dick, and grandson Jayson, had long and successful careers in MLB as well.

Though Schofield had opportunities to stay in the league as a coach, he chose to return to his hometown of Springfield to treasure his time with his loving wife, Donna, and their three children: Kim, Dick, and Tami. Schofield proudly represented his community as an accomplished salesman and 20-year board member of the Springfield Metropolitan Exposition Authority.

As a grandfather to eight and great-grandfather to five, Dick was a true family man that cherished the time spent with all of them. I send my deepest condolences to my friend Jayson and the entire Schofield family.

Dick, may you rest in peace.

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

I think it is important today to begin by taking a step back, provide some important context about the bill we are considering today, and reestablish some important facts.

Election administration and the way elections work is a complicated process. For most of us, this experience typically consists of showing up, casting a ballot, and then digesting news coverage of results. Very few people realize everything that goes on behind the scenes.

But recently, as election administration has come into the forefront, there are a lot of people who all of a sudden seem to think that they are an expert on the subject. This includes many of the people in these buildings and in the press.

Many of those folks have never been on the ground in election offices across the country and couldn't tell the difference between an e- pollbook and a high-speed ballot scanner, yet they know they are right.

This has led to all sorts of rumors, narratives, and misinformation across the political spectrum to percolate within our society, and that has caused people to lose faith in our elections. This is a huge problem.

I have spent the past few years traveling the country to learn about different State election processes and have met with countless Republican and Democrat election administrators.

I have learned about the checks and balances in place.

Free and fair elections are the bedrock of our democracy, and we must ensure people can have faith in elections and election processes and outcomes in order for our democracy to continue to thrive.

Unfortunately, one false narrative that has been pushed by my colleagues on the other side is that Republican Members of Congress are election subverters or deniers, trying to overthrow elections because of an objection to a State's electoral slate on January 6. This has been fueled by members of the media who don't understand the subject.

They are claiming that this particular action was unprecedented and an affront to democracy. However, so many of them, including powerful committee chairs that are in power today, have objected in the past. In fact, Democrats have objected to every single Republican Presidential win in the 21st century.

Another false narrative is that somehow the legal actions taken by the Trump campaign, the rhetoric of former President Trump, Republican Members of Congress voting to object to a State's electors, and the illegal actions of many people who attacked the Capitol on January 6 were all connected in some kind of mass conspiracy by Republicans to stage a coup.

These two narratives are now presented on a daily basis as though they are fact, but that is quite simply not true. The fact of the matter is, there are longstanding legal frameworks in place to adjudicate disputes in election outcomes that have been utilized regularly, regardless of party.

There is not enough time today to go through all of them, but the point is these processes have existed for a long time, and they are used frequently and often by candidates of all political stripes.

There are checks, balances, and safeguards woven in throughout the system. The goal of every election framework is to ensure the person who takes the oath of office is the one who actually won. That is true in the States, in the courts, and here in Congress.

The best news of all is these systems have worked. At the end of the day, the outcomes were exactly as they should have been. It is why people can and should have faith in our election system.

This isn't to say that our system is perfect. There is always room for improvement, but unfortunately, that is not what is happening here today.

The Electoral Count Act has been in place for over a century and directly implements constitutional provisions. Members of all political parties have exercised their rights under the provisions of that law to raise constitutional objections to State electoral slates if they determine something may be improper. This is not an affront to democracy. Frankly, it is democracy in action.

In fact, Democrats have quite an extensive history of objecting to the electoral count. I include in the Record a list of over 80 Democrats denying election results, including many chairs, people like Chairperson Maxine Waters, Chairman Bennie Thompson, Representative Jamie Raskin, and many others here today.

Committee on Republicans House Administration,

Ranking Member, Rodney Davis,

Democrat Objectors Since 2000

2000 (Jan. 2001)

Rep. Alcee Hastings,

Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr.

Rep. Maxine Waters

Rep. Ted Deutch

Rep. Carrie Meek

Rep. Corrine Brown

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson

Rep. Elijah Cummings

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

Rep. Barbara Lee

Rep. Cynthia McKinney

Rep. Patsy T. Mink

Rep. Eva Clayton

Rep. Bob Filner

2004 (Jan. 2005)

Sen. Barbara Boxer

Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones

2016 (Jan. 2017)

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee

Rep. Pramila Jayapal

Rep. Jim McGovern

Rep. Jamie Raskin

Rep. Barbara Lee

Rep. Raul Grijalva

Rep. Maxine Waters

Again, the result in all of these cases was that our system worked. The House and Senate did what they were supposed to do, heard the objections, disposed of them properly, and ultimately certified the election as originally presented.

Objecting does not make you an election subverter or denier. Each Member of Congress has a constitutional duty to do what they think is best for their constituents.

At the same time Democrats were accusing Republicans of undermining democracy, they themselves were attempting to overturn the results of a duly-certified election in Iowa's Second Congressional District. The challenger, Democrat Rita Hart, even said that she brought the contest to a partisan committee in D.C. instead of Iowa courts in order to ``get the result we need.''

This was after the State of Iowa followed their normal and lawful process throughout the election for Iowa-02. The votes were counted, recounted by multiple bipartisan recount boards, and duly certified.

Yet, this majority orchestrated having their candidate bypass State courts and instead attempted to utilize the House itself to steal a congressional seat to boost their slim majority. This was the single biggest act of election subversion that occurred in the 2020 election cycle, and it was carried out by the same people here today claiming that Republicans are a threat to democracy.

Fast forward to today. Democrats are once again attempting to move a major piece of legislation that overhauls a key piece of our election system in a partisan manner behind closed doors. They didn't hold a hearing or a markup on this bill. They didn't release legislative text until 24 hours before it was considered in the Rules Committee. They didn't consult Republicans on the committee of jurisdiction, despite repeated overtures to work together on discussions of this important issue--all rebuffed.

Why rush such a significant piece of legislation when the next Presidential certification won't happen for over 2 years? It is pretty simple, Madam Speaker: The midterm elections are just weeks away, and the Democrats are desperately trying to talk about their favorite topic, former President Trump.

As someone who voted to certify Joe Biden as President and who recently lost a primary race to a candidate endorsed by the former President, I believe what House Democrats and the January 6th Committee are doing is irresponsible and wrong.

They have allowed their dislike for one man, President Trump, to cloud their judgment and guide their actions, no matter the consequences to this institution or the Constitution that they claim they want to uphold.

It is time that we started being honest with ourselves and with the American people. The facts are:

The President and his campaign filing legal challenges in State and Federal courts around the country was not improper nor unprecedented. Everyone is entitled to their day in court. Those suits were considered by judges and ultimately rejected. The process worked.

The rhetoric of former President Trump following the 2020 election was highly inappropriate.

Republican Members of Congress objecting to a State's slate of electors is not election subversion or unprecedented.

The actions of the individuals who attacked the Capitol on January 6 were wrong. Those individuals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Democrats have just as long of a history as Republicans of challenging and questioning elections, including attempting to overturn a duly certified congressional election in Iowa. This is not a partisan issue, and the processes in place have worked.

Madam Speaker, I would just reiterate that people's faith in our elections is critical to the long-term success of our democracy. It is time for House Democrats to quit playing partisan political games and pushing false narratives just to preserve their own power.

It is incumbent upon all of us to be honest and work in good faith to serve the American people, restore faith in our elections, and protect our democracy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is always good to follow my good friend, Leader Hoyer. I appreciate his friendship, and I appreciate his time here in this institution. He has seen a lot of things happen in the governing of this country. I respect him and his viewpoint.

It is frustrating when we also hear comments from my colleague, Leader Hoyer. Back on January 25 of this year he was quoted in a Politico story where he said that President Biden is correct that the midterm elections will be illegitimate if Congress doesn't pass the Democrats' election takeover bills.

This is part of the rhetoric that we have got to stop. We have got to make sure that we remind everybody, as Leader Hoyer did, my good friend, that this is an American issue. It is not a partisan issue. The processes have worked.

I want to know, if it is an American issue and not a partisan issue, Madam Speaker, why, then, were we not even consulted as the committee of jurisdiction minority members?

I would have loved to have been able to sit down and come up with a bipartisan solution. No Republican--no Republican--that I know or that I respect thinks that the violence on January 6, which we all witnessed, is okay.

I think it was a terrible day. I think, again, anyone who committed those acts and those crimes should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Let's be clear: They broke the law. It doesn't matter what you are protesting, Madam Speaker, if you break the law.

Madam Speaker, if you are rioting in the streets, looting stores and businesses, and committing the crimes across this country that we have seen exacerbated because of the Biden administration's lack of effort in enforcing these activities to be adjudicated, then do you know what? They should be held accountable. Arrest them, prosecute them, and put them in jail.

Leader Hoyer also said this bill and this process should not be about one man. I agree. I agree. But, unfortunately, this bill is nothing short of being only about that one man. This is too important of an issue to make this about an individual that you may or may not like or that you may or may not want to run for President ever again. This bill and this process is too important for the future of America.

Madam Speaker, my good friend, Mr. Hoyer, brought up Hillary Clinton. She actually denied the results of the 2016 Presidential elections and believes

there were legitimate questions regarding the integrity of the 2004 Presidential election. She said that Stacey Abrams would have won the 2018 gubernatorial election against Governor Brian Kemp if it had been fair.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Madam Speaker, I thought the esteemed Member from California was going to speak a little longer. It caught me a little off guard. I apologize. I am not used to him being that succinct in anything he does but thank you.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my good friend, another esteemed Member of this institution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a tweet from Speaker Pelosi on May 16, 2017, that says: ``Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy and #FollowTheFacts.''

I couldn't agree more. We need to follow the facts.

The Speaker asked: How can one vote against this bill? Well, I would say: How can we vote for a bill that was completely done without any consultation?

Here is what I hope, Madam Speaker. I was actually comforted somewhat during the Rules testimony yesterday when my colleague, Chairperson Lofgren, mentioned that the goal of the majority is to watch this bill pass--I have many concerns with it; I laid those out yesterday, and I will lay them out again--but hope the Senate passes the version that we could have used as the basis and the starting point here in the House, and then we could go to conference committee.

Okay, I hope it happens. I am not going to hold my breath, but I certainly hope it happens. I reiterate my desire for that to be a process where we can finally come together in a bipartisan way. Again, I am cautiously optimistic.

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, I had the opportunity to testify yesterday before the Committee on Rules about how this process has been highly partisan, and that I would have welcomed an opportunity to work on the Electoral Count Act reforms in a bipartisan way--just like the Senate did.

There is one quote from my friend, Ranking Member Tom Cole, that I want to share. As he said, ``Given all the majority's righteous and high-minded talk over the last 2 years about how democracy itself is in peril, don't you think it would be better served to have operated through regular order with real Member buy-in on a topic that is as important to the American people as this one?''

That is how the Senate handled this task--in a bipartisan matter driven toward finding consensus. Why shouldn't the House operate in the same way? Instead here in the House, every outreach made by Republicans to work on this issue was rebuffed.

This bill tramples on State sovereignty. While the Constitution gives States the authority to make and interpret their own State laws, this bill would grant Congress unprecedented authority to determine what State law is.

Second, there is a provision of this bill that gives candidates the ability to broadly define catastrophic events--which could include major natural disasters or acts of terrorism--and then use that event to extend the balloting after the polls close for up to 5 days.

Think about it. A candidate could pull a Pelosi and request a change in the rules supposedly because of the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the fact that the majority of the country has moved on--including President Biden who declared the pandemic is over, just to extend voting for 5 more days for their political benefit.

Or remember just last year, when President Biden's FBI labeled concerned parents attending their children's school PTA meetings domestic terrorists?

With many polling at schools, a candidate could try to claim that parents meeting is a catastrophic event. We also can't forget that many Democrats have claimed that Republican-led States with newly enacted election integrity laws like Florida are suppressing voters.

Could a candidate then try to claim voter suppression because they don't like their State's laws and then request the polls stay open once they see election results that aren't going their way?

This bill would create a new private right of action for all Presidential candidates or their electors and specifically expand the scope of the right to tabulate.

This creates a big question as to how and if Congress has the authority to require candidates to go to Federal court to force them to follow State law.

I mean, I can just picture the field day election lawyers like sanctioned Democrat Marc Elias would have with these provisions all while creating mass confusion for voters who will question if their vote was even counted. Voters don't need Congress to come in and overcomplicate the ECA process that has worked for the last 135 years.

As a reminder, we came back the night of January 6, after the tragic events that we all witnessed here in this Capitol, and we certified Joe Biden as President and Kamala Harris as Vice President.

What voters want is to show up on election day, easily cast their ballot, know that their ballot is counted in accordance with the law, and for election results to come in later that night. But this bill doesn't do that. Instead, it could very well do the opposite.

This bill does nothing to prevent another mob from attacking the Capitol. Neither Mike Pence doing what every Vice President in history has done nor lawful constitutional objections being filed caused a mob to attack--and clarifying those responsibilities won't prevent another mob.

That is why this bill won't even see the light of day over in the Senate and why we should have used the bipartisan Senate version as a starting point. Maybe then we could actually enact some necessary updates to improve and clarify the certification process and focus on the big unanswered problem--the security of the Capitol. Bad actors by definition don't follow the law so any changes made to the Electoral Count Act aren't a silver bullet.

As I have been saying this entire Congress, we need to be focused on why the Capitol was left so unprotected on that day in January. Why was a mob able to breach one of the most significant buildings on our planet?

Again, I invite all of my Democrat colleagues to work with me to improve the security of this Capitol and the people it holds. That is how we prevent another attack.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill because it is both bad process and bad policy. The American people deserve better. They deserve to have full confidence in the election process and the outcomes.

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

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

Madam Speaker, all I have to say on this rule is to listen to whatever she said, nothing of what my colleague from the State of Colorado says.

I am actually here because my good friend, Mrs. Fischbach, is allowing me to correct a mistake. I missed the 1-minute time period, so I am going to use my time to actually honor one of my constituents.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Thomas Ramage, the fifth president of Parkland College since its 1966 inception, who will retire at the end of this year following a remarkable 15 years as president and 24 years of service to the institution.

Under the leadership of Dr. Ramage, Parkland College completed a $92 million campus master plan that created six new buildings, adding 250,000 square feet of classrooms, labs, and student service spaces to provide the quality educational facilities that our students need.

During his time at Parkland, Tom has continued to adapt to the changing needs of industry, acquiring the Institute of Aviation at Willard Airport from the University of Illinois and forming lasting relationships with private-sector partners.

Under his guidance, Parkland also leads the Illinois community college system by enrolling more than 350 international students, representing well over 50 countries.

Dr. Ramage's strong fiscal management and guidance led Parkland College through a recession, a State budget crisis, and a pandemic. The legacy of excellence that he leaves behind is even stronger than when he became president in 2007.

I have had the pleasure of working with Tom throughout my decade in Congress. I am proud to call him my friend, and I congratulate him on his well-earned retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor John Trees.

Mr. Trees lived in Springfield, Illinois, and was the loving husband to our own district office's Candice Trees. On September 28 of this year, they would have celebrated 48 years of marriage.

John was a proud veteran of the U.S. Air Force, serving during the Vietnam war. After his years of service, John went on to become a skilled laborer and accomplished carpenter.

Once retiring from the Illinois Department of Transportation, John had more time to do what he loved. Combining his love of food and serving others, John started his own catering business aptly named Two Drunks in the Dark Catering.

He truly enjoyed spending time with his wife, three daughters, and five grandchildren. Going on yearly trips to St. Louis Cardinal games or attending his grandchildren's sporting events were just a few things ``Papa John'' loved to do.

John would be the first to lend a hand and always had a welcoming door at his home. John was always great at providing advice and giving direction to those who needed him the most.

We honor John today, and I send my deepest condolences to Candice and the entire Trees family during this very difficult time.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend Mr. Reschenthaler from Pennsylvania for yielding. He is right that it is disinformation. It is disinformation. We should defeat the previous question so that we can go back to what defined a recession and what has defined a recession for decades.

Democrats have to stop playing games, playing games with misinformation and disinformation. Now, we have got another game being played with this rule today.

This is a rule, as my good friend from New York talked about, that is going to allow a bill to come to the floor that has some very good bipartisan provisions. I think many Republicans would support a lot of the provisions in this CHIPS bill.

The problem is, why in the world does the majority have to continue to play games instead of actually working with us and doing anything in a bipartisan manner?

Tucked into this rule is a provision that will completely eviscerate the intent of a rule that was negotiated in a bipartisan way by Republicans and Democrats that if a Member of Congress was able to secure 290 cosponsors on a bill, he or she would have then been given the right, as a Member of this institution, to have that bill debated and voted on, on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I remember Democrats and Republicans standing up and touting this provision, that this is going to bring power back to every Member of Congress. Until today--until today when the Rules Committee decides to turn this provision off, to deny the 294 cosponsors of the Social Security Fairness Act that is in place because all 294 of us want fairness for our retired teachers, our retired firefighters, and our retired police officers. They are turning off this rule for one reason and one reason only, to not have a vote on the floor like they promised us they would do.

We followed their rules. And what did Democrats do? They changed the rules in the process.

Do you want Republicans to vote for legislation in a bipartisan way when you play games like this? Well, don't be surprised when there are a lot of noes popping up on the board today for a piece of legislation that I think a lot of Republicans would normally support.

It is games like this that hurt the retirees the most. Democrats for decades have promised retired teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public employees--they promised those individuals that they would do something to fix these egregious provisions, the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision in the Social Security Code.

This is their shot--this is your shot, Madam Speaker, to get the majority----

Madam Speaker, this is the majority's

shot to live up to the promises the Democrats have made for decades to those who have been begging for a solution. All you have got to do is take this rule back, remove this turn-off provision, allow the consensus calendar to continue as it was intended to continue when this rule change was negotiated.

If I was a bipartisan member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, I would be coming to the floor screaming. What I want to do is I want every single cosponsor of H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act, to consider--all 293 others besides me--I want you to consider voting against this rule. Because if they can turn this off and they can change the rules midgame, then why celebrate a bipartisan success story that was put in place in 2019? Stop playing politics.

Madam Speaker, Members of the majority, quit playing games, vote down this rule, and change this provision.

Madam Speaker, I have the utmost respect for my friend and colleague from New York, but he is dead wrong in the information and advice that he got from the Committee on Rules.

The sheer fact that this so-called turn-off provision is nonchalantly just used as--well, it wasn't part of the consensus process, but let's pound our chest and say we created the consensus calendar process to begin with, so we are great. Well, when you disrupt the consensus process, you are not great. You are actually changing the rules midgame.

Really, here is the kicker: There is talk about us having to come back to do a few votes while we are in the midst of August. The way this rule is written, those days won't even count toward the consensus calendar.

Rest assured, there is no other reason that the Democrats and the majority on the Committee on Rules are doing this than to stop the progress of actually addressing the Social Security Fairness Act.

We have 294 cosponsors. We played by the rules. Democrats changed the rules midgame. And you trust this majority to actually put a bill together that is going to stop China from dominating the chip production industry in the globe when they play games like this?

That is what the American people are sick and tired of. That is why that is an outgoing majority. That is why we are going to have a new majority. It is games like this that have to stop being played when you talk about bipartisanship, but you don't actually govern in a bipartisan way.

Today is another shining example of that. Again, 294 cosponsors. We play by your rules, we play by the majority's provisions, and you change the rules midgame. I certainly hope our umpires tonight at the Congressional Baseball Game are better at actually codifying the rules that exist.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Jordan, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this anti-Second Amendment legislation. I know firsthand how important firearm ownership and the Second Amendment are for self-defense.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago, I was in the batter's box at a baseball field in Virginia, practicing for our Congressional Baseball Game, when a deranged gunman tried to kill us because we were Republicans.

The attack would have been a massacre if not for the armed U.S. Capitol Police Officers, my heroes, David Bailey and Crystal Griner, who were there.

The actions on that field that day solidified my support for the Second Amendment. Remember, Mr. Speaker,

this gunman wanted to settle his political differences with us, who were trying to fix a broken healthcare system, with bullets on a baseball field.

It is not what we do in the United States of America, but that day, my thought was, I wish I had my firearm to protect myself.

We don't need more laws and restrictions that make it more difficult for law-abiding, gun-owning citizens to exercise their constitutional rights and protect their families.

We need to support law enforcement and get tough on criminals who steal guns and commit violent crimes and further improve mental health programs.

I am a proud gun owner. I am a concealed carry licensee and a strong supporter of our Second Amendment. I always have and always will work to preserve the Second Amendment for law-abiding, American citizens. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this attack to undermine the Second Amendment.

Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 270.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Walberg, and appreciate his leadership on this issue and also, the bipartisanship that is being shown to the American people today to address an issue that is important--to Ranking Member Foxx, too--to our communities.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6087 because of what has been said. The positive impact that this bill can have within our medical communities, and giving Americans access to the healthcare that they deserve is something that deserves all of our support.

This bill would include physician assistants and nurse practitioners in the Federal workers' compensation program and put them in line with the State scope of practice. It is also going to improve access to care for injured Federal workers and postal employers, especially in the areas that I serve--in rural and underserved areas--like central and southwestern Illinois.

Getting people back to work as soon as they can once they recover from an injury is now more important than ever given the record inflation we are seeing and the staggering 11.4 million open jobs in this country.

This is a commonsense piece of legislation. I am glad to support the work

of my friend, Congressman Tim Walberg, on this bill to ensure that injured Federal employees return to the workforce quickly.

Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, this past February, a Democrat staffer organization began a public campaign to unionize. A month later, the Committee on House Administration held a hearing on the topic of congressional unions.

To be clear, that hearing was not to consider the resolution that is before the House floor today, much less a mark-up. That hearing was, however, an opportunity to ask the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights--the office that administers the law governing unionization efforts in Congress--questions about how staffer unions would logistically work. The result of that hearing was more unanswered questions.

While unions play a vital role in many workplaces, including throughout my district, they just aren't feasible for Congress. OCWR's own General Counsel was unable to provide answers regarding how the unique office structures, fluctuating partisan balance, and unavoidable turnover due to elections would impact congressional unions. Yet Speaker Pelosi is bringing forward the resolution for a vote anyway.

This isn't about helping all staffers, because if it were then the majority would have given Republicans the opportunity to provide our input, including a chance to amend today's resolution. But once again, the majority is abandoning regular order to push a partisan proposal.

One of the main concerns of staffers is low pay. As a former staffer myself, I know both the opportunities and challenges of working in a Congressional office and can assure you that an office providing fair pay and maintaining a healthy work environment are the keys to recruiting and retaining top talent. And I have great news for everyone here today: you don't need to wait for the Speaker to unilaterally implement a pay order to start doing so. Every Member's office was provided a 21 percent MRA increase in March of this year.

Further, collective bargaining would not and could not address the issue of low pay--Federal law forbids this. Federal law also prohibits negotiation on healthcare and retirement benefits even if this resolution were to pass. Instead, union dues would just take more money out of staff's hard-earned paychecks without really anything to show for it.

Unionization also creates potential conflicts of interest that could impact a Member's constitutional responsibilities, including unique influence over Members' development and passage of certain legislation, and political contributions to Members using dues paid by their staff. As a reminder, under current law, congressional staff are not allowed to make political contributions to their employers.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution because it is quite simple: unions don't make sense for Congress.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Virginia Theatre in Champaign, Illinois, which celebrated 100 years of business on December 28, 2021.

In 1921, Charles ``C.C.'' Pyle made the decision to build a major entertainment venue in downtown Champaign, an area that had been known as a cultural hotspot. He initially had a vision of a 12-story hotel with a large theatre space, but that quickly changed. The final building resulted in a stand-alone, multipurpose performing arts center.

In January of 2000, the Champaign Park District made countless efforts to prevent this landmark from demolition. Once they assumed control of the theatre, it went on to grow into a $10 million restoration project to bring the theatre back to life.

Through the years, the Virginia Theatre has been the ``place to be'' for friends, families, and colleagues in the community. The Theatre hosts local productions, concerts, movies, live theatrical plays, stand-up comedy events, and many more.

Congratulations to the Virginia Theatre on their 100th anniversary, and I wish them all the best in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, 15 months have passed since January 6 of 2021, yet I have seen little evidence over that time to indicate the necessary progress has been made to ensure the Capitol complex is more secure.

And I have seen no evidence that the politicized select committee is serious about identifying or addressing the issues that led to our Capitol being so unprepared on that day, which should be its top priority.

On February 17 of this year, the GAO released a report detailing the lack of security preparedness by Capitol Police leadership and the Capitol Police Board on and in the lead-up to January 6. The rank-and- file men and women who serve Congress as members of the Capitol Police put their lives on the line every day. Yet, the Capitol Police Board, controlled by Speaker Pelosi, failed them. They deserve better.

Instead of working to ensure our Capitol Police officers have the tools and the training they need to prevent another event like January 6 or taking long-overdue steps to reform the Capitol Police Board, the House is once again voting on a contempt resolution because two individuals are not complying with another sham subpoena issued by House Democrats.

I have a newsflash for members of the Select Committee: You do not have limitless power. You cannot demand testimony, documents, or even view the information of your political opponents without their consent or without the law on your side. You have neither.

Specifically, Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro are unable to testify on specific topics that are related to their work in the White House, nor can they testify on communications between President Trump and the President's closest advisers, as those communications are protected under President Trump's claim of executive privilege.

As a reminder, the American taxpayer is spending millions of dollars on this select committee. According to The Washington Post, the select committee is on pace to spend $9.3 million by the end of December.

To put that into perspective, that amount exceeds the current budgets for the Committees on the Judiciary; Agriculture; Budget; Ethics; the Committee on House Administration; Rules; Science, Space, and Technology; Small Business; Natural Resources; Homeland Security; Veterans' Affairs; and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

That is right, this select committee is using more taxpayer resources on their partisan investigation than Democrats have devoted to serving veterans, addressing rising prices in inflation, or helping our farmers during a massive supply chain crisis.

This is nothing more than a sham investigation full of misuses of congressional authority, including Speaker Pelosi violating 230 years of precedent by refusing to allow the minority party to select its own committee members, failing to investigate pursuant to a valid legislative purpose, altering evidence to fit a certain narrative, lying to witnesses, falsely accusing witnesses, violating deponents' right to challenge subpoenas, and perhaps above all, refusing to investigate why Speaker Pelosi and the Capitol Police Board left the Capitol so unprotected that day.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 103.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Scott Busboom of Decatur, Illinois.

Scott has worked in the radio industry for more than 30 years. Most recently, he has spent over 20 plus years broadcasting in Decatur. He spent the past 10 years waking up Decatur with the ``Busboom and Wolfe'' morning show, which he hosted with long-time television reporter and friend, Doug Wolfe.

Scott was an avid fan and supporter of local high school and college athletics. He has broadcast more than 350 boys' and girls' high school basketball games and more than 325 Millikin University men's and women's games. He broadcast the first Decatur High School girls' game on the radio and was at the microphone for the Millikin women's 2005 NCAA Division III National Championship victory.

Scott helped form the Decatur Thanksgiving Tournament and was inducted into the Illinois Basketball Coaches Association Hall of Fame in 2013.

As a monthly guest on ``Busboom and Wolfe'' for many years, I will miss our conversations and his presence on Talk 101 FM. I want to congratulate Scott on a long and accomplished career, and I wish him a restful retirement. He truly deserves it.

I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 98.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Baird (Walorski)

Bilirakis (Fleischmann)

Bowman (Meng)

Cawthorn (Nehls)

Comer (Fleischmann)

Crist (Wasserman Schultz)

Cuellar (Pappas)

Curtis (Stewart)

DeGette (Blunt Rochester)

Espaillat (Correa)

Harder (CA) (Gomez)

Jayapal (Gomez)

Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)

Joyce (OH) (Garbarino)

Kahele (Mrvan)

Krishnamoorthi (Beyer)

Lawson (FL) (Wasserman Schultz)

Mace (Rice (SC))

Manning (Beyer)

McClain (Fitzgerald)

Newman (Beyer)

Owens (Stewart)

Roybal-Allard (Wasserman Schultz)

Salazar (Gimenez)

Sanchez (Gomez)

Scott, David (Jeffries)

Sessions (Babin)

Sires (Pallone)

Soto (Wasserman Schultz)

Steel (Obernolte)

Strickland (Takano)

Suozzi (Beyer)

Taylor (Carter (TX))

Thompson (MS) (Evans)

Trone (Beyer)

Waltz (Mast)

Wilson (FL) (Jeffries)

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4738, the COVID-19 American History Project Act. I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Julia Letlow of Louisiana, for championing this important legislation.

When the COVID-19 pandemic reached our shores, our lives were all impacted. Some of these changes were temporary, and some of them were permanent.

Congresswoman Letlow continues to live every day with the impact this pandemic has had on her family, and I am inspired by her courage and willingness to share her story. Unfortunately, her story is not entirely unique, and many families across this Nation have been forced to say good-bye to a loved one far too soon.

Their lives and memories deserve to be recorded, collected, and preserved so that this unprecedented pandemic is accurately understood by historians, students, and Americans from all walks of life.

Over the last 2 years, we have all felt fear of the unknown. In a lot of ways, when the pandemic hit, our Nation was caught off guard. This project will help ensure future generations can learn from the trials we have overcome and the triumphs we have been able to achieve.

The American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress is the largest and most extensive library in human history, and I can think of no better place to house the personal histories, testimonies, written materials, and photographs of Americans whose lives were lost, those who bravely stood on the front lines, and also all those who demonstrated the American spirit through innovation, resilience, and compassion.

As Congresswoman Letlow has expressed, this project is about providing healing and hope for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, against my better judgment, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Ms. Letlow), the sponsor of this piece of legislation and my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this institution now and had the privilege to serve here for over 9\1/2\ years. And that was, by far, one of the most inspiring personal stories that I have had a chance to witness.

I can tell you, based upon what I learned about Luke Letlow from my colleagues like Garret Graves and Steve Scalise and Clay Higgins and others, was that Luke Letlow was so excited to be a part of what we sometimes take for granted here in the House.

I was a former staff member just like Mr. Letlow was, but his runoff election was right at the time between orientation, where I would have had a chance to meet him, and a chance for him to be sworn in. And that is when the tragedy that Congresswoman Letlow talked about her family facing took place.

Luke Letlow didn't get a chance to raise his right hand and be a part of this House, but his legacy will live on forever as part of this oral history project.

I cannot think of a better way for a mother to be able to give her children, in honor of their dad and her husband, the legacy that he deserves than by passing this bill tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone in this institution to vote ``yes'' to preserve the legacy of not only Luke Letlow but of those whose families have been impacted the exact same way as the Letlow family by this pandemic.

Let's move beyond this pandemic but let us never forget. Let us remember our heroes, and let us remember those families, and let us remember how great our country is to be able to move beyond.

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