Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Small Business Committee for astute work on issues dealing with small businesses; Mr. Williams, a colleague from Texas; and the bipartisan sponsors of this legislation.

I have always said that small businesses are the backbone of the economic engine of America, so I rise in support of H.R. 400, the Investing in Main Street Act of 2023, for the wiseness of providing more investment in small businesses.

As a strong supporter of small businesses, I believe that this bill will improve the livelihood of many small

businesses that have continuously been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill is designed to release more capital investment into small businesses in America. If my colleagues have interacted with the small business community, that is one of the number one issues that they raise consistently.

The bill would allow certain banks and savings associations to invest more into small business investment companies by increasing the statutory cap from 5 percent to 15 percent--I can't even imagine the number 5 percent--and the growing amount of small businesses and the ones that really stayed the course in desperate times, which was COVID- 19.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020 had the highest total number of applications for new businesses by far compared to all other years. From 2019 to 2021, there was a 20 percent increase in the number of small businesses. The Kauffman Foundation says that the highest amount was among Blacks, Latinos, and immigrants.

People know that small businesses allow them to create jobs in their own neighborhoods and to build future conglomerates, but obviously, small businesses reported negative impacts due to COVID.

It is important for this bill to become law immediately. Pass it in the Senate and ensure that we have the opportunity to keep our small businesses from closing. When small businesses have ideas, we need to be able to give them the investment to focus on.

The Biden-Harris administration has laid the foundation and has helped create the conditions for businesses and job creation. We have had increasing job creation every month, but we do know that cities like New Orleans and Honolulu have seen the highest rate of small business closures. Other cities are right behind.

The fact that we can have a Small Business Administration that reforms and works with the Paycheck Protection Program, to improve that, if we had another circumstance like that that held up some of our small businesses, this investment is going to be a lifeline.

I am delighted to rise to support this legislation because, again, as I opened my remarks, small businesses are the economic engine of America and give women, minorities, and others the opportunity to build an economic engine.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 400, the Investing in Main Street Act of 2023, to amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to increase the amount that may be invested in small business investment companies.

As a strong supporter of small businesses, I believe that this bill will improve the livelihood of many small businesses that have continuously been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This bill is designed to release more capital investment into small businesses in America.

The bill would allow certain banks and savings associations to invest more into small business investment companies by increasing the statutory cap from 5 percent to 15 percent.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States saw a significant rise in small businesses.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020 had the highest total number of applications for new businesses by far compared to all years that data was available.

From 2019 to 2021, there was a 20 percent increase in the number of small businesses created. That is more than double the average growth rate year to year.

According to the Kauffman Foundation, the increase in the rate of entrepreneurship during the pandemic was highest amongst Blacks, Latinos, and immigrants.

Even though there has been a significant rise in the number of small businesses during the pandemic, many businesses report negative impacts due to COVID.

In April 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau launched the Small Business Pulse Survey to produce data in real-time on the challenges small businesses were facing due to the pandemic.

When the first survey was collected in April of 2020, 90 percent of businesses surveyed stated that the pandemic had a negative effect on business.

When the last survey was collected in April of 2022, 70 percent of businesses surveyed stated that the pandemic had a negative effect on business.

Almost three years into the pandemic, small businesses are still struggling with getting back on their feet.

Cities such as New Orleans and Honolulu had some of the highest rates of small business closures in the country because their economies are largely built around serving visitors.

In large cities like San Francisco and Austin, the food industry was largely impacted because those who would typically eat out on their lunch break were now working from home.

The time for small business recovery is now.

The Biden-Harris administration has laid the foundation and has helped create the conditions for business and job creation.

With the evolution of almost 5.4 million small businesses in 2021, we must work to maintain and support these growing businesses.

The Biden-Harris administration partnered with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to reform the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The policy changes targeted small business and companies that were left out of previous relief efforts.

The data shows that these PPP policy changes provided more support in minority communities than the rounds under the previous administration.

The Small Business Relief under the American Rescue Plan included targeted grant relief and tax credits for small businesses hit by the pandemic.

The Small Business Relief produced immediate relief to more than 600,000 of the hardest hit small businesses.

The Biden-Harris administration was able to provide more than 6 million small businesses with $450 billion in emergency relief via the Small Business Administration.

Investing more in our small businesses has had a profound impact on the job market in the United States.

In the first three quarters of 2021, small businesses with 50 employees or less created almost 2 million jobs in the United States, the fastest start to small business job growth in any year on record.

Investing in main street should continue to be a priority for Congress.

Through this bipartisan bill, certain financial institutions would have the ability to invest more into small business investment companies by raising the statutory cap.

I urge my colleagues to join me and support this important legislation that will expand access to capital, increase the number of small businesses, and create jobs at home.

We must show the American public that improving the economy is a priority in Congress. This bill is a good first step at doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member and I thank Ms. Tenney for her leadership on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the name of Iranian freedom. Freedom now for Iran and the Iranian people.

This legislation is brave, as it speaks clearly in a clear tone without fear for the courageous persons who have gone to the streets, not regarding their life or the lives of their families. I call them brave, courageous, resolved freedom fighters, fighting for their very life.

This legislation is absolutely necessary, and it is, of course, bipartisan. I thank Mr. Meeks for indicating the strength of the Biden administration and the sanctions that have been offered, and the manner in which the Biden administration, Democrats, and Republicans have said to Iran: No nonsense. No nonsense, and certainly no nuclear capacity.

Anything that we have to do to ensure that that does not happen should not be tabled. But what should be tabled is the unbelievable brutal fighting and killing that has occurred against freedom-loving people.

I have been a longtime fighter with the people of Iran who are here in the United States. Iranian Americans have taken to the streets to be able to say: No more.

We will stand with our brothers and sisters in Iran.

I have seen the various attacks that have resulted in mass killings. I have seen the fight in Camp Ashraf in Iraq where there has been a large loss of life of people who have been fighting for freedom. I went to the camp to see the devastation.

I have supported plans for democracy in Iran. I understand that they need us to stand by them.

What a horrible and brutal scene that we have seen: children falling dead, mothers, brothers, fathers, and uncles.

What about Mahsa Amini?

She was just 22 years old, wanting her life to be before her, seeking democracy and freedom. She was a young, bright woman with courage that was taken away viciously in an ugly attempt to show how domineering this regime is. In the course of taking her away, her life was snuffed out.

We don't know her last hours, last days, last minutes, or last seconds. We don't know how brutal it might have been, how she might have cried out for someone to be able to be empathetic and sympathetic, someone to understand that her life deserved an opportunity to live, and yet this brutal regime continues to be without concern for anything that it does.

I want to say to all of the Iranian women, men, and children protesters who are leading the fight, I say loudly and clearly that we are standing with you.

I support this legislation entirely, and I want to continue the U.S.- Iran friendship with those people who are fighting for freedom.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks by saying I support Iranian women struggling against dictatorship.

Let me continue to say that I want this relationship between the U.S. and Iran to continue with the Iranian people who are fighting for democracy. I believe it is important that this legislation pass to show that America is a champion for global democracy.

I would like to also indicate that I look forward to organizing the Iranian women's struggle against dictators congressional caucus, and I hope there will be many who will join us. Let us keep our voices alive.

I rise again to support H. Con. Res. 7. I thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership, and I thank the sponsors of this legislation for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 7, a resolution that commends the bravery, courage, and resolve of the women and men of Iran protesting and speaking out against the Iranian Regime's human rights abuses.

As a long-time advocate and fighter for justice and equality, I am inspired by the millions of Iranians that are putting their lives on the line day after day in hopes that one day they will live in a country that values justice, freedom, and the rule of law.

The U.S. Department of State cites Iran for a wide range of human rights violations; among them injustices such as arbitrary arrest, torture, and unjust executions.

I remember the attack on Iranian refugees at Camp Ashraf by Iraqi soldiers on April 3, 2011.

Camp Ashraf was the home to more than 3,000 members of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), an opposition group against the Iranian regime.

I went to Camp Ashraf in solidarity and support of the democracy and freedom loving Iranian people and that support continues to this day.

In July 2019, I penned a letter to President Maryam Rajavi to commemorate the occasion of the Annual Gathering for a Free Iran and to extend my heartfelt congratulations on her election.

I expressed my support for her 10-Point Plan for the future of Iran, which ensures freedom of parties and assembly, an abolition of the death penalty, a separation of church and state, gender equality and several other promising policy positions that will thrust Iran into the future.

Under President Maryam Rajavi's leadership, women have risen to hold pivotal positions in the Iranian Resistance.

Iranian women will be the engine for change in Iran.

The uprising in Iran started with the murder of Mahsa Amini, a 22- year-old woman arrested by morality police in Tehran on September 13, 2022, for allegedly violating Iran's strict rules requiring women to cover their hair with a hijab, or headscarf.

Since the day of Mahsa Amini's funeral, women, men, and children have taken to the streets, risking their lives for a free and democratic Iran.

It is estimated that since the start of the protests in September, over 500 protesters have been killed, and thousands more arrested.

To all the Iranian women, men, children, and protestors who are leading the fight, I say loud and clear that I stand with you. America stands with you.

I am proud to support the women of Iran, the youth, and the brave men and women who are struggling to make these freedoms possible for the people of their nation.

Let us continue to foster U.S.-Iran friendship and collaboration as we work together to advance the universal rights of all humans, including basic respect for human rights and the rule of law.

The mountaintop of justice for women, for men, for children and for all Iran is on the horizon.

I will always champion global democracy, stand against human rights violations, and never shy away from speaking truth to power in the presence of oppression.

That is why I encourage my colleagues to work toward putting human rights at the center of America's diplomacy by supporting H. Con. Res. 7.

Together, we will put an end to the indiscriminate violation of human rights in Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 159, the Chance to Compete Act of 2023, as amended, that implements

merit-based reforms to the civil service hiring system and would replace degree-based hiring with skills- and competency-based hiring.

It is critically important that we make skills- and competency-based hiring, the fundamental method of assessment for hiring in the competitive civil service.

No person, with the requisite skill, training, and competency should be prevented from securing a job because of a requirement that they hold a higher education degree.

As modern industry and technology evolve, so too do the pathways to professional achievement.

Recently, apprenticeship programs are an increasingly viable alternative to a traditional degree as they give students new opportunities to gain both knowledge of the subject matter and a skill set tailored specifically to their chosen profession.

These programs allow them to pursue jobs which align with their passions and strengths while still providing the students with important recognition in the form of a certificate which demonstrates their expertise in the field.

Undeniably, these skills focused models have opened doors for many who have been marginalized economically--giving them access to well- deserved dignity and success within their communities.

It is past time that the competitive civil service do away with degree requirements and make skills- and competency-based hiring the fundamental method of assessment.

This change will expand the pipeline of candidates who can access the competitive civil service jobs.

I have long been a champion of education and workforce development.

Several institutions in my district, including Houston Independent School District, Lone Star College, and Houston Community College have very successful trade and skills and based training programs.

These programs cover the gamut from culinary arts to auto-mechanic programs, to certificate programs for estheticians.

In 2017, Hurricane Harvey, killed 67 people, flooded 154,000 homes and 500,000 vehicles, and inflicted $125 billion in damage, primarily from catastrophic rainfall--triggering the worst flooding in the Houston metropolitan area history.

In the aftermath, I advocated for funding for Houston Community College for a water disaster resilience training, certification and onboarding of skills, technologies, and training for first responders and the public to better prepare for the unique challenges posed by massive urban flood events.

This and other programs offer the opportunity to gain practical and in-demand skills needed to build a successful career in todays economy.

The Chance to Compete Act of 2023 will open new pathways for those without a degree, and allow them to access job roles in the competitive civil service that may have otherwise been inaccessible which gives them the opportunity to advance their lives and careers.

Furthermore, access to jobs in the competitive civil service based on skill and competency will grant people an unprecedented level of access to the dignity of work that fulfills a great need in today's society.

We must remain committed to recognizing the power and potential of non-degree based assessments for access to new employment paths, especially in light of today's changing job market.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me express my appreciation to the members of this committee, Gerry Connolly, and then to look at my friend, Mr. Raskin, I am delighted to be on the floor with him and delighted to be on the floor with the manager of this legislation as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 300, the Settlement Agreement Information Database Act of 2023, which would help increase the transparency of executive agencies to the public and allow the public to hold the government accountable.

This is the people's House. We were just discussing, even today, the enormity of the work that we have done in the powerful infrastructure bill, the CHIPS bill, and the Inflation Reduction Act. But if there are aspects of a bill that should be directed to the people, if there is information that lets them have a fullness of what has happened on behalf of the American people--what have we accomplished?

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 300 would make public certain information included in settlement agreements entered into by executive agencies by establishing a public database for the reporting of agreements that cover alleged violation of civil or criminal law.

The information that will be disclosed to the public include: what type of settlement it is, any costs of money involved in the settlement agreement, what State and local governments are affected by the settlements, and the duration and modifications of such.

This ties into my point earlier of knowing information about what is going on in the government in terms of our legislation. This specifically provides the information to families and businesses and communities if there has been a settlement on a matter that they are interested in.

True transparency is for the government to be known by American citizens on everything we do, and one of the most hidden is the idea of settlements of cases. Maybe it has impacted a city, an individual, a family, a school, and it is important to know what these agreements are.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this legislation in the name of transparency, and I rise to support H.R. 300, and I ask my colleagues to support it enthusiastically as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 300, the `Settlement Agreement Information Database Act of 2023,'' which would help increase transparency of executive agencies to the public and allow the people to hold the government accountable.

H.R. 300 would make public certain information included in settlement agreements entered into by Executive agencies by establishing a public database for the reporting of agreements that cover alleged violation of Federal civil or criminal law.

The information that will be disclosed to the public include the following: what the type of settlement agreement it is, who is involved, any costs or money involved in the settlement agreement, what state and local governments are affected by the settlement agreements, the duration and modifications of the settlement agreement and any justifications for the settlement agreement.

This bill also allows for confidentiality in situations where the interests of the confidentiality provision would protect public interest.

An information database is important in the oversight of executive agencies, to ensure they are properly carrying out and enforcing laws we have passed.

As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, this information would be vital to the security of the country.

This information is important in knowing what secret deals are being made that relate to the violation of federal civil or criminal law, and to whom and where settlement payments are being sent.

H.R. 300 is a crucial step in protecting democracy.

By making settlement agreements public information, the public will feel more confident that there are no secret deals to cover bad behavior by corrupt government officials.

Additionally, this act serves as a deterrent for potential bad behavior in any government agency because the information database would ensure that bad behavior could not be hidden.

We work in an office of public trust, and the best way to ensure that the people trust us and listen to us, is to be as transparent as possible in any actions we take.

H.R. 300 helps the people to keep the government and check and hold us accountable.

By becoming transparent in how settlements are paid, taxpayers can be confident in how their money is being spent and what ways settlement agreements are impacting fiscal health.

It is important that we know the financial burden these settlements have on state and local governments.

The people deserve to be informed on where their money is being put and how that affects their communities and public services.

This way, when the people feel violated or that a community issue is not addressed, they can better advocate for themselves and participate in the democratic process.

As elected officials, our job is to make sure we are helping our constituents and advocating for their issues.

If we limit information, we are stopping our citizens from getting the help they need from us or understanding who they should hold accountable for a problem.

That would be a detriment to democracy.

H.R. 300 is necessary because it is an important step in creating government transparency which is crucial to the democratic process.

Offered by: Ms. Jackson Lee

Amendment No. 37: Insert on page 2 line 9 following

``Except in the case of'' insert ``Exchanges, which are an

authorized procedure for oil acquisitions, or'' 42 USC 161(i)

or'' This amendment allows the beneficial arrangement that

exists that allow refiners to acquire crude of higher value

than what they will be required to return to the reserve.

They can lock in the differential between the current

contract price and the future price in outer months and

years.

Insert at the appropriate section of the bill the

following; This amendment and future amendments shall not go

into effect until the Secretary provides a report on the

necessity of acting under the authority of this section to

refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

The program for office is mandated by law to coordinate

with the industry on steps taken under title 42 6231

Offered by: Ms. Jackson Lee

Amendment No. 38: Insert on page 2 line 9 following

``Except in the case of'' insert ``Actions taken to prevent

or reduce adverse impacts caused by severe domestic energy

supply interruptions: 42 USC 6241(h). This is a limited

drawdown and sale authority that is limited to 30 million

barrels within 90 days or less.

Page 2 Line 13 strike everything to the end of the page.

Insert Sales of 100,000,000 barrels or more that occur in

less than 36 months shall require a report on the impact on

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Insert at the appropriate section of the bill the

following; This amendment and future amendments shall not go

into effect until the Secretary provides a report on the

necessity of acting under the authority of this section to

refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee

Amendment No. 35: Page 2, line 11, insert ``or a drawdown

with respect to which the petroleum products drawn down will

be exchanged pursuant to subsection (i),'' after ``(d),''.

Page 2, line 13, strike ``date of enactment of this

subsection'' and insert ``date this paragraph takes effect

described in paragraph (4)''.

Page 3, line 9, strike the closing quotation mark and the

final period.

Page 3, after line 9, insert the following:

``(4) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall not take effect

until the Secretary submits to Congress a report on the

necessity of acting under the authority of this section to

refill the Reserve.''.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee

Amendment No. 36: Page 2, line 11, insert ``or a test

drawdown under subsection (g),'' after ``(d),''.

Page 2, line 13, strike ``date of enactment of this

subsection'' and insert ``date this paragraph takes effect

described in paragraph (4)''.

Page 3, line 9, strike the closing quotation mark and the

final period.

Page 3, after line 9, insert the following:

``(4) Effective date.--Paragraph (1) shall not take effect

until the Secretary submits to Congress a report on the

necessity of acting under the authority of this section to

refill the Reserve.''.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for his leadership and recognition that when we speak about this legislation and the question of blocking the utilization of the petroleum reserve during times of crisis, we must raise a question.

Obviously, having experienced a big freeze in Houston and the State of Texas, where 151 people died, we had to face the question of a very poor energy system; a lack of access to fossil fuel, I must admit; a frozen nuclear system; and being unprepared in terms of alternative energy. It was a freeze that we had never experienced in Texas.

The idea of the utilization of the petroleum reserve for me is a national security issue, and this legislation literally says if the President has the need and necessity to protect the American people, it will not be allowed.

Mr. Speaker, I have to rise in opposition, even coming from what has been called previously the energy capital of the world. What we want to have in Houston, and I believe in the Nation, is a multidisciplined recognition that there is a climate crisis, but at the same time recognizing the importance of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for, in fact, the necessities of the President to be able to provide for this Nation.

The American people are listening. They want an executive who can make decisions that will block the Russians from absolutely crippling us. They want a President who can utilize this reserve.

Today, I stand against this legislation because it baffles me as to how we can undermine the President of the United States in serving the American people and providing for energy relief when necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 22--Protecting America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve From China Act.

It is critically important that we opposed the Republican effort to put together half-baked solutions to nuanced energy policies.

This bill is yet another Republican attempt to appear tough on China and for them not taking responsibility for their misguided actions in 2015 when they reversed the 40-year ban on exporting crude oil-- including exporting to our foreign adversaries.

This bill does nothing to prevent the sale of oil to China, whether from the strategic petroleum reserves or otherwise, because American companies can simply buy the oil and sell it to China for a profit.

This legislation will result in unwarranted and unnecessary restraint on the ability of the president to act in a time of crisis or a national emergency.

We should not be passing legislation that will restrict the president's ability to help American working families, as he did when he used the strategic petroleum reserves in response to Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine.

If we really want to address this issue in a common sense and expansive manner, then we should instead adopt the Democratic alternative to this ill-conceived Republican bill now under consideration.

In the 117th Congress, under the leadership of Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), the Democrats introduced the Buy Low and Sell High Act, which would implement a comprehensive approach to protect American interests.

The Democrats' Buy Low and Sell High Act not only bans the export of oil from the strategic petroleum reserves to China, but it also bans sales to North Korea, Russia, Iran, and any other country under U.S. sanctions.

If Republican's were serious about protecting and refilling the strategic petroleum reserves, they would work with Democrats to pass the Buy Low and Sell High Act that advances a comprehensive approach to American energy policy.

We must take a wide-ranging, bipartisan, and strong approach to ensure that the president can support all Americans, and especially working-class families during times of national energy crisis.

We must take a strong bipartisan approach to ensure that we do not allow our politics to cloud our judgment and hamstring the president's ability to bring down gas prices in times of need.

Madam Speaker, let me, first of all, acknowledge Damar Hamlin for his courage and his fight to survive. Welcome home as he is discharged from a Buffalo hospital so that he can recover. That is the kind of strength that represents America, and though I am not from Buffalo, let me salute the Buffalo Bills.

I rise today, Madam Speaker, to speak about the child and to ask America: How does a 6-year-old shoot a teacher?

From the research from the University of Pennsylvania, the answer is that children become shooters because they have access to guns. So in my congressional year 2023, I am going to demand that this Congress claims this as the Year of the Child.

As a founder of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am going to call upon my Democrat and Republican colleagues to join this caucus to be able to establish the premise that no child should go to bed hungry; no child should be without housing or good education; and no child should get off a school bus and be shot as two children were in Washington, D.C.

Stop the gun violence. Let this be the Year of the Child. Let us lift up our children so they can be healthy adults.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the opportunity to serve in the United States Congress with a little over 10,000 Members over the decades, and for the years of service that I have been given this privilege, and at the decision of my constituents allows me to look over the landscape of the journey that we have taken.

I was here when medical procedures for parents who wanted nothing more than a healthy baby were then characterized as a criminal act and called partial-birth abortion when a mother had to make a decision with her God, her doctor, and her family.

I remember the hearings in the Judiciary Committee where mothers were crying because of the medical procedure that was necessary to save their life.

We have now come full circle, and the extremists want to again demonize parents who are desperate--desperate for a healthy child.

I have seen this before: extremist views criminalizing a medical choice that has to be made, criminalizing abortion from east to west and north to south. I will not have it.

I know that this is a most personal decision and one that families do not want to make. But as a person of faith, I believe it should be that woman, that family, that God, and that doctor.

So, unfortunately, today we will have the effort to criminalize these actions of doctors. You see, Mr. Speaker, I come from a State where the State legislature and Governor passed a bounty hunter bill to go after doctors and nurses who would be giving medical care to innocent women and to individuals who were seeking that care.

How outrageous in a constitutional democracy, Mr. Speaker, that you want to injure people and you want to undermine doctors and undermine nurses. What an outrage that, again, this extremist agenda continues.

Yet, in the face of a 13-year-old being shot to death in the District of Columbia with a gun, the guns are rampaging across America, guns of a 6-year-old who shot a teacher; mass murders are more extensive in this last year, 2022, than ever, there is not a real effort to ensure that guns are not proliferating in the hands of those who should not get them, guns that should actually have penalties for those who do not store it; penalties for manufacturers who do not indicate, label, and insist that the guns be stored; or, in fact, the universal background check that has not been able to be passed. These are things that could save lives of living individuals who are now at the brunt end of gun violence.

Yes, putting guns in the hands of people who should not have them, having better mental health services and red flag laws. But the way the bill was written, you have to opt in. States like Texas will not opt into a red flag law to protect people. And all I see in my area is--not because police are not working as hard as they can--domestic violence with guns day after day after day and week after week because guns are in the hands of the wrong people.

So, Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to say there is a lot of good work we can do together, there is a lot of good work that Democrats have done. We are seeing it in the bipartisan infrastructure bill and dealing with climate change which is evident by the tragedy that is happening to our friends in California.

But I am glad to stand up here today and announce something really good that today, because of Democrats, the Social Security recipients will have an 8.7 percent increase in their COLA. I will go home over the weekend and over the days and into Martin Luther King celebrations where he believed in lifting the least of those and be able to say to those Social Security recipients: You got an 8.7 percent increase in your COLA because of Democrats and President Biden.

We intend to do things and to be active on behalf of the American people. We intend to cure problems and not make problems. We intend to help our schoolchildren, help our teachers, help our nurses, help our doctors, and help those senior citizens whom I see in the

senior citizen community centers saying: When are we going to get the ability to have a cost of living so that we can live because we have been the ones who have helped build this Nation?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues and the administration to be unafraid of moving forward on H.R. 40.

Isn't it time that we assess the impact of slavery in this country?

Over 200 years it has never been addressed. It has never been addressed. H.R. 40 needs to pass on the issue of studying slavery and developing reparation proposals.

Madam Speaker, what an important topic, limited to 1 minute, but I rise today to acknowledge Human Trafficking Awareness Day, to acknowledge that a Texas woman just filed a lawsuit against one of our universities for sexual abuse and the grooming by her coach to use her over and over again.

Human trafficking is one of the greatest threats to human rights in the United States. In 2020, over 11,000 instances of potential human trafficking were reported to the United States National Human Trafficking Hotline, and at least 70 percent of those were, in fact, estimated to be sex trafficking.

I am delighted that Chairman Mike McCaul and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, myself, have introduced the Stop Human Trafficking in School Zones Act because that is one of the largest sites for trafficking.

We look forward to a bipartisan Congress supporting this legislation that will particularly provide enhanced sentencing to those who would dare to recruit our children at schools, and they do it all across the Nation.

Madam Speaker, I hope that we are aware today is Human Trafficking Day and that we recognize we must do something to stop it.

Madam Speaker, this is a solemn moment. I join my fellow colleagues, the women of the Democratic Caucus, to stand here because we stand in the name of those who have died: 11 murders, 42 bombings, 196 arsons, 491 assaults, and thousands of incidents of criminal activity directed at our doctors, our nurses, and our patients.

After COVID-19, America woke up to the vitality and the necessity of our medical professionals, but I come here today to express my concern. I wish my friend from Louisiana had worked with my side of the aisle so that we would acknowledge that there has been loss of life of innocent persons who simply were providing medical care.

Dr. David Gunn was shot and killed by an opponent of abortion during a protest. A former pastor kills a doctor and clinic volunteer. George Tiller, twice a target, is killed.

This legislation is an extreme initiative because it is not here to acknowledge the solemnity of which we stand, first to recognize the constitutional right of a woman, her doctor, and her faith to be able to make a decision without fear and intimidation.

In a State like mine, we have vigilantism because it has passed legislation for bounty hunters to come back again from the 1800s to intimidate doctors, nurses, and patients.

This is a day that we must stand against. If we are to work together in this solemn moment, we must recognize all the doctors, nurses, and patients that have been intimidated.

The National Abortion Federation, in 2021, indicated that there has been an increase in violence. The significant increases in stalking, 600 percent; blockades, 450 percent; hoax devices/suspicious packages, 163 percent; invasions, 129 percent; and assault and battery, 128 percent.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation. Maybe we can, in solemnity, work together on this serious issue.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 3, a concurrent resolution that expresses the sense of Congress condemning the recent attacks on pro-life facilities, groups, and churches.

It is critically important that we opposed the Republican effort to rewrite history in a way that demonizes the victims and glorifies the aggressors.

Each American has the right to make their own healthcare decisions according to their own beliefs values, and conscience.

Republicans hope to strip women of their constitutional right of autonomy over their own body and their right to make their own healthcare decisions.

In Texas, Republicans have incentivized vigilantism and stalking by passing a law that provides civilians a cause of action against anyone who performs or aids an abortion and provides for a $10,000 cash reward if successful.

This resolution ignores the long-documented history of violence against abortion providers, their staff, and their patients and attempts to rewrite the facts.

According to Bloomberg, a survey of 390 clinics showed that assaults on abortion providers surged 128 percent in 2021 with reports of kicking, slapping and being pepper sprayed.

The National Abortion Federation 2021 Violence & Disruption Report, found a massive increase in violence and disruption against abortion providers.

The most significant increases were in stalking (600 percent), blockades (450 percent), hoax devices/suspicious packages (163 percent), invasions (129 percent), and assault and battery (128 percent) compared to 2020.

Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), a nonprofit that tracks political violence and demonstrations, asserts that anti- government militias and extremist groups like the Proud Boys appearance at abortion related events spiked 160 percent in 2021, compared to the previous year.

Further, in 2020, far-right groups appeared at only 1 percent of demonstrations related to abortion rights; in 2022, almost one in five events involved members of a far-right group.

This violence, harassment, and cyberbullying against those who seek abortions, their providers, and supporters is unconscionable.

The American public made it clear last November that they want Congress to protect reproductive freedom.

We stand with all women, and staunchly reject the misinformation in this bill and its attempt to cover up the attacks on basic human dignity and constitutional rights.

I urge all my colleagues to oppose this outrageous and dangerous resolution.

Madam Speaker, I would say: Here we go again. For those of us who have served in the United States Congress, this is: Here we go again.

This is legislation that is attempting to be wrapped in mercy that is without mercy. First of all, it is without fact. It is extremely important to know that if you were here in the United States Congress you know the history because we have already passed the bipartisan Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which reiterates the fact that it is illegal to interfere with a newborn. They are protected from both intentional harm by healthcare providers and harm from medical negligence--plain and simple, period at the end of the sentence.

Why are we here today?

We are here today for news clips. We are here today for quotes and condemnation of the other side of the aisle that wants to be reckless with the life of a child.

I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that those of us who have given birth and those of us who have lost in the birth process are extreme lovers of those wonderful opportunities of life.

I refuse and reject condemnation of my personal self because I believe these decisions are with a God--the woman's God and the families' God--her faith, doctors, and, of course, the persons who are a part of the medical profession.

I have article after article that talks about the tragedy of partial- birth abortion, which is the name used more than a decade ago. They always find creative names to be able to be criminalized.

We heard from a member of the Rules Committee who said: How dare you grab up a child, put them in an ambulance, and take them hundreds of miles away from their family?

Or maybe the family who found out that the multiple abnormalities of their child would not allow them to live, and they had waited 8 years for this wonderful baby. The decisions, unfortunately, of neither life nor death come easily for these children. There is a painful existence marked by periods of breathing cessation and seizures when they are born.

Because my OB was unable to get a good image of the brain until the 13th week, we understand that these are personal decisions. We understand that these are painful decisions.

So I stand with those families, I refuse to condemn those families, and I refuse to be merciless. I am giving mercy in voting against this legislation. I am voting against it now.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 26, the BornAlive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which would establish requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.

In the first week of the 118th Congress, extreme MAGA Republicans are launching attacks on reproductive freedom, intruding on medical decision-making, and keeping their promise to criminalize abortion nationwide with no exceptions.

H.R. 26 is a clear attack on health care providers and attempts to evoke power over the care that they provide to patients.

When the Senate attempted to pass this bill in 2019, 17 medical and public health organizations sent a letter in strong opposition to the bill stating that it represented ``a dangerous government intrusion into private health care decisions''.

This bill undermines medical professionals' training and critical judgment, minimizing their ability to determine the best medical treatment for their patients.

Medical professionals abide by a Code of Ethics during their career.

For lawmakers to undermine the work of medical professionals and attempt to prosecute them for doing what is right for their patients is inappropriate and misdirected.

This bill is a direct way to compromise the health and safety of patients.

A 2015 study published by the New England Journal of Medicine states that a baby's viability is the determining factor in the care that they receive.

The study states that ``active intervention for infants born before 22 weeks gestation is generally not recommended, whereas the approach for infants born at or after 22 weeks of gestation varies.''

Seeing that there are already standards in place to determine level of care, why should we as lawmakers intervene to override what medical professionals agree is the most appropriate medical treatment warranted by the circumstances.

To suggest that medical professionals would not provide equal and adequate medical attention to all patients is thoughtless, insulting, and uncivil.

For a party that advocated for minimal federal government interference and big government, Republicans are attempting to increase the federal government's jurisdiction over local governments.

Why should we as lawmakers seek to prosecute medical professionals that are simply doing their job?

This bill would force medical professionals to worry about criminal penalties and legislative interpretation when the appropriate medical care is already laid out.

This bill would remove a medical professional's ability to make the medically sound decision for their patient without government interference and the threat of repercussions.

This bill endangers infants because it puts Republican wishes ahead of appropriate medical care.

H.R. 26, Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, is dangerous to both medical professionals and patients. Medical professionals would be placed under unnecessary scrutiny, when legislation and protocols are already in place for this situation.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill that would establish requirements for the degree of care a health care practitioner must provide in the case of a child born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a statement written by Audrey Eisen titled: ``How The Abortion Ban Debate Became My Story.''

[From ACLU, Feb. 2, 2009]

How the Abortion Ban Debate Became My Story

(By Audrey Eisen)

I never thought that so-called ``partial-birth abortion''

would ever have anything to do with me. Why would it? I'm 34

years old and I desperately want children. My husband and I

have been together for eight years, married for four, and

trying to have a baby for two. Abortion was not something I

thought much about.

But earlier this year, all that changed.

In November of 2002, after fighting infertility and

experiencing the sadness of a miscarriage in July, we were

thrilled to find ourselves pregnant again. While still

apprehensive, we consciously decided to be excited--another

loss would hurt just the same, regardless of whether or not

we had allowed ourselves to be happy.

In the first few months, my endocrinologist performed

regular ultrasounds to ensure that the embryo was developing

normally. It was such a treat to be able to see our child

growing. I kept the pictures and my thoughts in a pregnancy

journal.

When it became evident that we were going to make it

through the first trimester, my endocrinologist referred me

to an obstetrician (OB). At my first appointment, the nurse

put a fetal heart monitor on my belly and, much to our

amazement, from a seemingly great distance, we heard the

characteristic ``whoosh'' of our child's heartbeat. We were

on top of the world thinking that, for sure, this one was

going to make it.

At 13 weeks, however, all this changed abruptly when,

during a routine ultrasound exam, my OB discovered our child

had

polydactyly (more than the normal number of digits). While at

first we thought it was just the hands, we later learned that

the feet were affected as well. At the time, my husband and I

thought it was no big deal--we had both known people with an

extra finger, and we were prepared to help our child live

with the condition. However, we soon found out that an extra

toe or finger were the least of our concerns: polydactyly is

associated with over 100 syndromes, most commonly Trisomy 13.

Trisomy 13 is characterized by multiple abnormalities, many

of which are not compatible with life beyond a couple of

months. Most fetuses with Trisomy 13 die in utero; of those

who make it to birth, almost half do not survive past the

first month; roughly three-quarters die within 6 months.

Long-term survival is one year. Unfortunately, neither life

nor death come easily for these children--theirs is a painful

existence marked by periods of breathing cessation and

seizures. Because my OB was unable to get a good image of the

brain during the 13th week ultrasound, we returned at 15

weeks.

The first thing my OB examined during this visit was the

fetal brain. He didn't say a word. I could tell he was

holding something back and asked that he tell me what he saw.

He said, ``It is not normal.'' The rest of the scan was a

blur as tears ran down my cheeks and those of my mother and

husband, who had accompanied me to the doctor's office that

day. Following the scan, the doctor left us alone to compose

ourselves. I cried with my whole body, from the depths of my

soul.

Shortly thereafter, I had other tests. These confirmed that

our baby had Trisomy 13.

At this point we discussed our options with a genetic

counselor. My husband and I both felt strongly that we did

not want our child to suffer; we decided to terminate the

pregnancy as soon as possible. I had an abortion on the first

day of my 16th week of pregnancy.

Soon after I had the procedure, I began to see news stories

about a new federal ``partial birth abortion'' ban. Like many

Americans, following the press on this issue over the past

several years, I had thought, ``My God, this must be

something horrible.'' But as I mourned the loss of my much-

desired pregnancy, I came to realize that if such legislation

passed, the right to safe second-trimester abortions like the

one I had might not remain available to those women who come

after me. While proponents of this ban claim that it is aimed

at one procedure performed late in pregnancy, the reality is

that it would prohibit the safest and most common procedures

used in the second trimester, well before fetal viability.

Without access to this care, I don't know how women will

endure if after routine prenatal testing they discover, as we

did, that their fetuses suffer from grave conditions

incompatible with life; I don't know how I would have

endured.

Two weeks following my abortion, we received a letter from

the genetic counselor. Our child had numerous abnormalities:

the brain, heart, and other internal organs were not

developing properly. Our child was also a girl and we miss

her very much. In our case, abortion was the only humane

choice. This choice must be preserved for the sake of all

women and their families. The American public needs to

understand the consequences of this ban and that the human

face of so-called ``partial-birth abortion,'' my face, could

be their own.

Mr. Speaker, I remember after 9/11 when we all worked together to ensure the protection of the American people through the Patriot Act and dealing with the FISA courts, we worked together because truth is important.

I just want to simply be on the floor today to speak about truth. I work with school boards across my district. I know that there is not one school board that does not welcome a parent to hear their voices because obviously they are partners in the education of our precious children.

In September 2021, the National School Board Association sent Mr. Biden a letter pointing to a trend of violence and threats against school officials. It included a brief reference to Mr. Smith's arrest incident and a long list of examples with a footnote to a news account that mentioned the arrest in passing but without details, like his daughter's assault.

The point is that this came about because there were threats against school board members.

So can we have truth here?

That is what I rise to bring to the attention of this body as relates to this committee and this select committee.

Is there going to be truth finding? Is this going to be a committee that is going to collect information or otherwise investigate citizens of the United States and give the most right-wing Members who may have an ax to grind the ability to participate or is it going to be fair?

Is it going to be a gross misuse of power with dangerous implications, unintended consequences, and potentially

expose general operations of our national security infrastructure, which will put American lives at risk?

Let me be very clear. Russia is one of our most dangerous adversaries. We are in the middle of a national quagmire, and to undermine that through investigations of the FBI and Central Intelligence is going to be extremely dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, the passage of this resolution would also give MAGA Republicans the ability to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations, including those investigating that day that some declared was just a bunch of tourists on January 6, 2021.

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with my friends on the other side of the aisle. I have worked with Mr. Roy.

But is this a question of truth?

That is the issue that we stand here discussing today.

In this country, no one is above the law, and to suggest that some people should be because they don't agree with the force of law being applied to their activities is contrary to the very fabric of fairness, justice, and equality that America was founded on.

Let me, as an aside, indicate that we know what has been in the headlines--10 documents found in a locked closet that Mr. Biden may have had. Well, you know what, Mr. Speaker, the process of the law is proceeding. The call was made. The documents were surrendered, if you will. The process goes forward under the laws of this land. No one denied it. No one rejected it. No one did not in any way come to say anything other than: Follow the law. On the other hand, in Mar-a-Lago no law was found.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider the truth and vote against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res. 12, a dangerous resolution whose passage would Establish a Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government or, more accurately, a subcommittee that would threaten our nations safety, security, and freedom.

MAGA Republicans love to hide behind the idea that they are pushing an agenda that would help the American people, but let's see this for what it truly is, a blatant assault on our democracy, our law enforcement agencies, our justice system, and our intelligence community, and an attempt to shield the twice-impeached former president from ongoing investigations being conducted by the Department of Justice.

The establishment of this subcommittee would give Republicans the ability to investigate any agency that ``can collect information or otherwise investigate citizens of the United States'' and gives the most right-wing members of the Republican party access to confidential documents solely intended for the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

This gross misuse of power will have dangerous implications and unintended consequences and could potentially expose general operations of our national security infrastructure which will put American lives at risk.

The passage of this resolution would also give MAGA Republicans the ability to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations including those investigating the extremist insurrectionists who lead the brutal attack on this institution two years ago.

In this country, no one is above the law, and to suggest that some people should be, because they don't agree with the force of the law being applied to their activities, is contrary to the very fabric of fairness, justice and equality that America was founded on.

This is a blatant attempt by House GOP members to stifle the federal government's investigatory powers, claiming that conservatives are being prosecuted and silenced.

The new Select Subcommittee comes as federal agencies such as the Department of Justice are investigating the GOP and its allies in multiple criminal investigations.

Members of the Republican party have been on press tours announcing this new subcommittee and have laid out their agenda, but how would this subcommittee help the American people in any way?

For a party that claims to be pro-law enforcement, the Republican party is now getting ready to undermine the hard work of our law enforcement and surveillance agencies.

Mr. Speaker what really is the intent here? I can tell you what I think it is. It is a back door effort to handcuff the current administration in their normal and usual course of operations?

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this dangerous and a completely irresponsible Resolution that will put the lives of Americans at risk and is a political stunt to further advance their dangerous conspiracy theories.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The New York Times titled: ``Republicans Preparing Broad Inquiry Into F.B.I. and Security Agencies.''

[From the New York Times, Jan. 8, 2023]

House Republicans Preparing Broad Inquiry Into F.B.I. and Security

Agencies

(By Charlie Savage and Luke Broadwater)

Newly empowered House Republicans are preparing a wide-

ranging investigation into law enforcement and national

security agencies, raising the prospect of politically

charged fights with the Eiden administration over access to

sensitive information like highly classified intelligence and

the details of continuing criminal inquiries by the Justice

Department.

The House plans to vote this week on a resolution to create

a special Judiciary subcommittee on what it calls the

``weaponization of the federal government,'' a topic that

Republicans have signaled could include reviewing

investigations into former President Donald J. Trump.

The panel would be overseen by Representative Jim Jordan,

Republican of Ohio, who is also poised to become the

Judiciary Committee's chairman. It remains to be seen who

else Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who made numerous concessions to

a far-right faction of his party to win the speakership, will

put on it.

In a Fox News interview on Friday evening, Representative

Chip Roy of Texas, a lead negotiator for hard-right lawmakers

who pushed Mr. McCarthy's team for concessions, portrayed the

panel as part of the agreement they struck for their support.

He said Mr. McCarthy had committed to giving the subcommittee

at least as much funding and staffing as the House special

committee in the last Congress that investigated the Jan. 6,

2021, attack on the Capitol.

``So we got more resources, more specificity, more power to

go after this recalcitrant Eiden administration,'' Mr. Roy

said. ``That's really important.''

A spokesman for Mr. Jordan did not reply to a request for

comment, but both he and Mr. McCarthy have spoken for months

about their desire for such an investigation and pledged to

voters during the 2022 campaign to carry one out.

``We will hold the swamp accountable, from the withdrawal

of Afghanistan, to the origins of Covid and to the

weaponization of the F.B.I.,'' Mr. McCarthy said in his first

remarks as speaker early Saturday. ``Let me be very clear: We

will use the power of the purse and the power of the subpoena

to get the job done.''

The text of the resolution establishing the subcommittee

would give the panel essentially open-ended jurisdiction to

scrutinize any issue related to civil liberties or to examine

how any agency of the federal government has collected,

analyzed and used information about Americans including

``ongoing criminal investigations.''

The Justice Department has traditionally resisted making

information about open criminal investigations available to

Congress, suggesting that legal and political fights over

subpoenas and executive privilege are most likely looming.

Republicans are promoting Mr. Jordan's panel as a new

``Church Committee,'' referring to a 1970s investigation by

Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho, that uncovered

decades of intelligence and civil liberties abuses by

presidents of both parties.

But in an environment in which Mr. Trump has been the

subject of multiple criminal investigations for years--

including continuing inquiries into his attempts to overturn

the 2020 election results and his hoarding of sensitive

documents--Democrats predicted the new investigative

subcommittee was likely to adopt a more partisan edge.

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat

on the Judiciary Committee, said the Church Committee had

been ``a serious and bipartisan attempt to reform the conduct

of the intelligence community, based on hard and verifiable

evidence.'' By contrast, he said that ``this new thing,

fueled by conspiracy theories and slated to be run by the

most extreme members of the MAGA caucus,'' was likely to be

more similar to the notorious House Un-American Activities

Committee of the mid-20th century.

Mr. Jordan is a staunch ally of Mr. Trump. Late last year,

as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee when his

party was still in the minority, he oversaw a 1,000-page

staff report that claimed that the F.B.I. had ``spied on

President Trump's campaign and ridiculed conservative

Americans'' and that the ``rot within the F.B.I. festers in

and proceeds from Washington.''

The resolution appears to give him authority to subpoena

the Justice Department for information about the special

counsel inquiry into Mr. Trump's attempts to overturn the

2020 election and his handling of classified documents, along

with other politically charged matters like an open tax

investigation into President Biden's son, Hunter Biden.

The text of the resolution would also grant Mr. Jordan's

panel the power to receive the same highly classified

information that intelligence agencies make available to

their

oversight committee, the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence.

Intelligence Committee members have access to some of the

most sensitive secrets in the government, including

information about covert actions, which are not shared with

other lawmakers. Traditionally, House leaders tend to place

on the intelligence panel members of their party they think

are especially trustworthy not to disclose classified

information.

While Mr. Jordan's investigative unit will be housed within

the Judiciary Committee, its 13 members--eight of whom would

be Republicans--will not be limited to lawmakers on that

panel.

It is not clear, for example, whether Republican leaders

would select hard-right members, such as Representative

Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican who was

stripped of her committee assignments in 2021 for making a

series of violent and conspiratorial social media posts

before she was elected. Mr. McCarthy has already promised her

a spot on the House Oversight Committee, and she broke with

other far-right members to support his speakership bid from

the first ballot, as did Mr. Jordan.

Such a situation could result in lawmakers trying to

scrutinize a Justice Department investigation as that inquiry

potentially examines some of those same lawmakers' conduct

concerning the events of Jan. 6.

In an interview on ABC's ``This Week'' on Sunday,

Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania,

rejected a suggestion that he should pledge not to serve on

Mr. Jordan's subcommittee because it may scrutinize the Jan.

6 investigation and as a witness in that inquiry, he had a

conflict of interest. Mr. Perry, who played an important role

in Mr. Trump's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020

election, had his cellphone seized by the F.B.I.

``Why should I be limited--why should anybody be limited

just because someone has made an accusation?'' Mr. Perry

said, adding: ``I get accused of all kinds of things every

single day, as does every member that serves in the public

eye. But that doesn't stop you from doing your job. It is our

duty and it is my duty.''

Some Republicans also seem to see the panel as an

opportunity to raise culture-war issues and promote

conspiracy theories. In his interview with Fox, Mr. Roy

described the subcommittee's mission as going ``after the

weaponization of the government, the F.B.I., the intel

agencies, D.H.S., all of them that have been, you know,

labeling Scott Smith a domestic terrorist.''

In fact, no agency labeled Mr. Smith a domestic terrorist.

Mr. Smith, whose daughter was sexually assaulted in a high

school bathroom in Virginia, was arrested after he lunged at

someone at a school board meeting during a tense and chaotic

debate over bathroom policy for transgender students. He was

convicted of disorderly conduct.

In September 2021, the National School Boards Association

sent Mr. Biden a letter pointing to a trend of violence and

threats against school officials. It included a brief

reference to Mr. Smith's arrest incident amid a long list of

examples, with a footnote to a news account of the meeting

that mentioned the arrest in passing but without details like

his daughter's assault. The letter also said acts of violence

and threats against school officials could be classified as

``equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate

crimes,'' and asked for federal help.

A few days later, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland

issued a memorandum directing U.S. attorneys and the F.B.I.

to convene meetings across the country with local officials

to discuss ``strategies for addressing threats'' against

school officials and teachers. His memo did not call anyone a

domestic terrorist, and it specifically distinguished

spirited debate, which it stressed was constitutionally

protected, from acts of violence and threats.

But voices on the right have made Mr. Smith a cause

celebre, falsely telling their viewers and readers that the

Biden-era Justice Department and the F.B.I. consider parents

who disagree with liberal school board policies to be

domestic terrorists.

The subcommittee investigation proposed by Mr. Jordan is

just one of a number of inquiries House Republicans plan to

approve this week.

Included in a separate rules package scheduled to come up

for a vote on Monday is a wide-ranging inquiry into the

coronavirus pandemic, including the origins of the virus, so-

called gain-of-function research, the production of vaccines

and the conduct of Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, Mr. Biden's former

chief medical adviser, whom Republicans have pledged to haul

before them for questioning.

Republicans are also planning to form a special committee

to investigate the Chinese government's ``economic,

technological and security progress, and its competition with

the United States.''

Both the China investigation and the investigation into law

enforcement are scheduled for a vote on Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res. 12, a dangerous resolution whose passage would Establish a Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government or, more accurately, a subcommittee that would threaten our nations safety, security, and freedom.

MAGA Republicans love to hide behind the idea that they are pushing an agenda that would help the American people, but let's see this for what it truly is, a blatant assault on our democracy, our law enforcement agencies, our justice system, and our intelligence community, and an attempt to shield the twice-impeached former president from ongoing investigations being conducted by the Department of Justice.

The establishment of this subcommittee would give Republicans the ability to investigate any agency that ``can collect information or otherwise investigate citizens of the United States'' and gives the most right-wing members of the Republican party access to confidential documents solely intended for the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

This gross misuse of power will have dangerous implications and unintended consequences and could potentially expose general operations of our national security infrastructure which will put American lives at risk.

The passage of this resolution would also give MAGA Republicans the ability to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations including those investigating the extremist insurrectionists who lead the brutal attack on this institution two years ago.

In this country, no one is above the law, and to suggest that some people should be, because they don't agree with the force of the law being applied to their activities, is contrary to the very fabric of fairness, justice and equality that America was founded on.

This is a blatant attempt by House GOP members to stifle the federal government's investigatory powers, claiming that conservatives are being prosecuted and silenced.

The new Select Subcommittee comes as federal agencies such as the Department of Justice are investigating the GOP and its allies in multiple criminal investigations.

Members of the Republican party have been on press tours announcing this new subcommittee and have laid out their agenda, but how would this subcommittee help the American people in anyway?

For a party that claims to be pro-law enforcement, the Republican party is now getting ready to undermine the hard work of our law enforcement and surveillance agencies.

Mr. Speaker what really is the intent here? I can tell you what I think it is. It is a back door effort to handcuff the current administration in their normal and usual course of operations.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this dangerous and a completely irresponsible Resolution that will put the lives of Americans at risk and is a political stunt to further advance their dangerous conspiracy theories.