Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1511) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 with respect to payments to certain public safety officers who have become permanently and totally disabled as a result of personal injuries sustained in the line of duty, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support S. 1511, the Protecting America's First Responders Act of 2021, which will make important improvements to the Department of Justice Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program.

Every day, public safety officers put their lives on the line for the greater good of those whom they have taken an oath to serve and protect. Unfortunately, some of those brave men and women make the ultimate sacrifice and die while in the line of duty.

The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, which is administered by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance, was established in 1976 to provide certain benefits to families of these officers, as well as to officers who are disabled as a result of their service.

A death benefit is provided to eligible survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are sustained in or due to actions in the line of duty.

An education benefit is provided to spouses and children of public safety officers killed or disabled while on duty, and the program provides disability benefits to officers catastrophically injured in the line of duty.

This program provides critical support to these officers and their families, and it is important that Congress continually oversee implementation and periodically update it to make it more effective and more efficient. That is what this bill would do.

Specifically, the bill would expand the program's restrictive definition of disability so that permanently disabled first responders are able to perform work for therapeutic purposes, work that involves simple tasks, or work that provides special accommodations and still receive PSOB benefits.

The bill would provide for retroactive disability benefits to public safety officers who responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, allowing those first responders who became permanently disabled as a result of their work at Ground Zero to reapply for disability benefits under the bill's expanded disability definition.

I am not from New York. I represent Texas. But I was at the edge of the creation of the Homeland Security Committee, which was generated around the tragic terrorist acts of 9/11, and interacted with those individuals who, time after time, went onto the smoldering grounds of Ground Zero to recover the remains of all who had fallen on that day.

They never stopped, Mr. Speaker, month after month, day after day. We honored those persons in the 20th commemoration of 9/11. I will speak about that as we continue this debate. There was no more moving, powerful, tragic, or devastating a moment in America's life, among others.

This bill would address lengthy delays in processing benefit claims by permitting the DOJ to use subpoena power to expedite claims so that impacted officers and families aren't left waiting for their owed relief during the most difficult of times.

For cases pending longer than 365 days, the bill would index the award amount to the date of the final determination, rather than the date of death or injury, so that families aren't financially penalized for any delays.

The bill would extend benefits to certain public safety officers not currently covered, including Good Samaritan officers who act outside of their jurisdiction in an emergency situation, trainee officers, and fire police who handle traffic and crime scene management.

The bill would close a loophole in the program where children born after the death or disability of a public safety officer are not able to receive education benefits and mandate that the DOJ provide backpay of educational benefits to children previously left out.

Finally, this bill also includes an extension of Safeguarding America's First Responders Act concerning the provision of benefits for officers who contract COVID-19 in the line of duty.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, my dear friend, Representative Bill Pascrell, for his leadership of the House companion to this bill and his longstanding service as champion of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, which I am delighted to have been a part of, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I support S. 1511, the ``Protecting America's First Responders Act of 2021,'' which will make important improvements to the Department of Justice's Public Safety Officers' Benefits program.

Every day, public safety officers put their lives on the line for the greater good of those whom they have taken an oath to serve and protect.

Unfortunately, some of these brave men and women make the ultimate sacrifice and die while in the line of duty.

The Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program, which is administered by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance, was established in 1976 to provide certain benefits to the families of these officers as well as to officers who are disabled as a result of their service.

A death benefit is provided to eligible survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are sustained in or due to actions in the line of duty.

An education benefit is provided to spouses and children of public safety officers killed or disabled while on duty.

And, the Program provides disability benefits to officers catastrophically injured in the line-of-duty.

This Program provides critical support to these officers and their families, and it is important that Congress continually oversee its implementation and periodically update it to make it more effective and more efficient. That is what this bill would do.

Specifically, the bill would expand the Program's restrictive definition of disability so that permanently disabled first responders are able to perform work for therapeutic purposes, work that involves simple tasks, or work that provides special accommodations and still receive PSOB benefits.

The bill would provide for retroactive disability benefits to public safety officers who responded to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, allowing those first responders who became permanently disabled as a result of their work at Ground Zero to re-apply for disability benefits under the bill's expanded disability definition.

The bill would address lengthy delays in processing benefit claims by permitting DOJ to use subpoena power to expedite claims, so that impacted officers and families aren't left waiting for their owed relief during the most difficult of times.

For cases pending longer than 365 days, the bill would index the award amount to the date of final determination, rather than the date of death or injury, so families aren't financially penalized for any delays.

The bill would extend benefits to certain public safety officers not currently covered, including Good Samaritan officers who act outside of their jurisdiction in an emergency situation, trainee officers, and fire-police who handle traffic and crime scene management.

And the bill would close a loophole in the Program where children born after the death or disability of a public safety officer are not able to receive education benefits, and mandate that DOJ provide back pay of educational benefits to children previously left out.

Finally, this bill also includes an extension of the Safeguarding America's First Responders Act concerning the provision of benefits for officers who contract COVID-19 in the line of duty.

I thank the Gentleman from New Jersey, Representative Bill Pascrell, for his leadership of the House companion to this bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support this bill today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield again to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell, who I have worked with, as have many others, as he has been on the front lines of helping first responders. He continues to do it, and I will continue to work with him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz), who is a committed emergency medicine physician and chair of the Hispanic Caucus and co-chair of the bipartisan COVID- 19 Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), another committed advocate for first responders and who has continued his work on that issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. You have seen the bipartisan and bicameral support of this legislation. I am grateful for that because I think this is an important statement in the midst of intense negotiations on Build Back Better and the INVEST Act, which will be an enormous gift to the American people, including our law enforcement, first responders, firefighters, and others. We now take a

moment to ensure that there are special benefits for public safety officers.

As I indicated, I had the privilege of being in New York at Ground Zero for the 20th commemoration and to hear stories of family members where the pain is still deeply embedded, to see babies that are relatives of the deceased that they never got a chance to see.

It was an honor to see the children of those who perished speak. They were just babies when their loved ones lost their lives in the line of duty in a brave manner.

The visual that I had in getting to that area during the recovery, still going on months later, hearing the whistle blow, seeing the gurneys come in carried by firefighters and others, the remains placed gently on that gurney makes this even more potent and powerful and important to be able to help.

In addition, there are two deputies who were wounded in the same tragic incident as the death of Deputy Atkins, and they, too, need comfort and support, and potential benefits that are necessary for their continued survival. I think this legislation impacts any number of men and women around this Nation.

Having participated with Local 341 President Marty Lancton just this past weekend at the Fire Memorial in Houston, Texas, to note those firefighters who passed in this last year--some suffering from COVID- 19, others that we are remembering who died in fires and other tragic incidents--this emphasizes more and more the importance of this legislation.

The Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program is an important program to address the terrible circumstances in which officers give their lives or are disabled due to their actions in the line of duty. Now we work to improve and strengthen this program in the ways we have discussed today.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) and all of the cosponsors. I was glad to also have the commitment of our House Judiciary Committee as well as the work of Senator Grassley.

This is a bipartisan bill that was adopted by the Senate by unanimous consent, and therefore I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation so the President can sign it into law.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program is an important program to address the terrible circumstances in which officers give their lives or are disabled due to their actions in the line of duty.

Now, we work to improve and strengthen this program in the ways we have discussed today.

This is bipartisan bill that was adopted by the Senate by unanimous consent.

I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this legislation so that the President can sign it into law.

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

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

Yesterday, I said there was going to be breaking news, and there is breaking news. Does anyone know that the great Houston Astros are in the World Series, and that this Congressperson representing Minute Maid and the Houston Astros is saying they are in it to win it?

Madam Speaker, I am challenging my sister from Georgia (Ms. Williams), with Dusty Baker as a coach and stellar baseball people, for some catfish and barbecue that you have never eaten before, against those Atlanta Braves.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I love it. Catfish and barbecue, yes, Dusty Baker, and all of our ball hitters and Barbara Jordan. We are in it to win it. Go Astros.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing

outstanding leadership to this issue. And I thank my good friend, Congresswoman McBath, for her outstanding leadership on helping to reauthorize this very important legislation that really saves lives.

In my own district, we lost a heroic Sergeant Preston of the Houston Police Department for one of the most dangerous calls that police get, domestic violence. He was killed. The 11-year-old son was shot, but, thank God, he survived. What terrible, senseless violence.

We know that in this program, more than 76,000 people a day are helped. It is important to take note of the fact that intimate partnership violence is a crucial element of this legislation. To be able to reauthorize the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act is to save lives.

In addition, it is important to take note of my amendment that has been accepted. I look forward to debating it on the floor and the $2 million extra that the State of Texas will give.

But the most important part of it is the recognition that we will save lives and help to bring families together and to unify the Nation.

As indicated, 76,000 victims of domestic violence are helped, but 11,000 are unable to get help because of the lack of funding.

It is important, as well, to note that, on average, more than one in three women and one in four men in the United States will experience rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner.

It is also important to relieve the regulations, the strangulations that were on this bill before. It now opens it to up provide more to individuals who are suffering.

What we want to do is to end family domestic violence, and what we want to do is to end that intimate partner violence and bring families together, protect children. I am supporting this legislation, and I believe it is long overdue.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act, which makes a good bill even better.

I thank my colleague, Congresswoman McBath of Georgia, for introducing this important legislation which will improve the protection and prevention for Americans affected by family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence.

The Jackson Lee Amendment improves the bill by requiring the Comptroller of the United states to produce a report on the success of outreach efforts to minority communities.

Through the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), survivors receive services such as emergency shelter, crisis counseling, safety planning, and assistance recovering from financial abuse and housing insecurity.

FVPSA is the only federal funding source dedicated to providing support to domestic violence shelters and programs.

Madam Speaker, this bill marks an historic effort to acknowledge and address the unique suffering of family violence survivors from marginalized communities.

I thank the Rules Committee for including my amendment, because this amendment is straightforward and makes this important bill even more effective than it already is.

We must recognize that not all survivors are a monolith.

Different communities and cultures have different perceptions of domestic violence and reactions to it--therefore different communities and cultures need different treatments and prevention measures to address domestic violence.

That is why I am proud to support this bill, which includes provisions that are tailored to these specific populations.

Such provisions include:

1. Providing new grants to local programs serving culturally specific or traditionally underserved communities;

2. Increasing access for survivors from racial and ethnic communities to services by creating a national grant program to build the capacity to address domestic violence; and

3. Increasing funding for Native American tribes by allocating tribal grants as a set-aside to acknowledge their sovereign authority.

These are laudable initiatives, and my amendment goes a step ' further to sustain this commitment by adding a requirement that the Comptroller of the United States must produce a report on the success of outreach efforts to minorities.

Specifically, my amendment requires the Comptroller General to include in the study and report described in Section 19 the results of outreach efforts conducted pursuant to section 308 to certain groups-- including racial and ethnic minorities, individuals with disabilities, tribal populations, and individuals who are geographically isolated-- regarding increasing the availability and ease of access to services.

Simply put, receiving accurate feedback about our efforts will inform our decision-making, allowing us to adapt and improve upon our programs to reach more minority survivors.

It is these communities specifically that are in the most need of our help.

In my home state of Texas, 29 percent of domestic violence victims are Black despite making up only 12 percent of the population.

The share of domestic violence victims in Texas who are Native American is twice as much as the proportion of Natives in the general population.

Madam Speaker, no member should be complacent with these egregious statistics.

With this bill's increased commitment to prevention and treatment of family violence, we are sending a message to survivors that you are not forgotten.

For these reasons, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act.''

Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman very much for his work, and again let me thank my colleague, Congresswoman McBath, a member of the Education and Labor Committee and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support my amendment, and all of the other amendments, which in particular my amendment provides an outreach that I think is extremely crucial to providing an outreach to populations that have been unnecessarily victims of domestic violence.

I do want to, again, emphasize the issue of Sergeant Preston, who died in the course of a police encounter with a domestic abuser with a gun, and to emphasize that an average of 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States; more than 12 million women and men over the course of a year. Nearly 3 in 10 women, or 29 percent, and 1 in 10 men, in the U.S. have experienced physical violence and/or stalking.

This reauthorization is long overdue. Just under 15 percent of women, 14.8 percent, and 12 percent of men in the U.S. have been injured as a result of intimate partner violence that included rape, physical violence, and stalking by an intimate partner. More importantly, how many of them have been killed?

In my own district, we had a circumstance of a domestic violence incident where the woman was killed in the bed, and laying next to her was her newborn infant. The stories are without comparison.

When you talk to women's shelters, the great need that they have and the funding that is going to come from this particular effort is $2 million to the State of Texas alone. The effort that is most important is vulnerable women, women of color, and Native Americans. The Tribal dollars that are in here are crucial as well.

The Violence Against Women Act, I hope that we will see its passage in the Senate, along with the reauthorizing of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act as well, because we, too, address the question of Tribal women.

Madam Speaker, Tribal circumstances are an enormously difficult circumstance to be engaged in. The abuse in the Tribal areas, and the utilization of vicious acts then coming out and not being prosecuted is really unseemly.

But this is going to be intervention. This is going to be saving lives.

I would just offer, as I close, a comment on who we should expand this to: the LGBTQ community, the transgender, individuals who have to deal with the remnants of a rape. That is, of course, a pregnancy that my State, the State of Texas, has now violated all human dignity with their abortion bill that not only stops women from engaging with their faith leader, their family members, and their doctor, but it also stalks women and sends people out for a bounty to get $10,000.

So this is the kind of uplifting legislation, reauthorization after 10 years, that is going to address the question of women who are desperately in need and also protect law enforcement officers as well.

Madam Speaker, this is also going to protect law enforcement officers as well. In tribute and memory to Sergeant Preston, a veteran of the HPD, the idea of being able to go and help and come back with your own life and protect those who are being victimized. The less we have of that and the more intervention that we have, the more we can save lives.

So I want to claim that this particular legislation is lifesaving. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, which is, in essence, attempting to get more resources, more information, and support the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act,'' which will improve the protection and prevention for Americans affected by family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence.

I would like to thank my good friend, Congresswoman McBath, for championing this important legislation and shepherding it to the floor.

Through the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), survivors receive services such as emergency shelter, crisis counseling, safety planning, and assistance recovering from financial abuse and housing insecurity.

The FVPSA supports life-saving services throughout the country via grants to states, tribal governments, and territories through three primary sets of activities, all of which are administered by HHS.

First, the FCPSA funds a national domestic violence hotline that receives calls for assistance related to this violence. The hotline provides crisis intervention and counseling, maintains a database of service providers, and provides referrals for victims and others affected by domestic violence.

Second, FVPSA funds efforts to prevent domestic violence through a program known as Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and Leadership Through Allies (DELTA).

Third, FVPSA supports direct services for victims and their families. Most of this funding is awarded via grants to states, territories, and tribes.

FVPSA is the only federal funding source dedicated to providing support to domestic violence shelters and programs.

FVPSA provides base core funding to support more than 1,600 local public, private, nonprofit, and faith-based organizations and programs in their response to the urgent needs of over 1.3 million domestic violence victims and their children.

In 2020, the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) found that in just one day, FVPSA-funded programs helped 76,525 victims of domestic violence.

However, over 11,000 people were unable to be served due to a lack of funding.

This shortage of funding is especially severe with shelters serving rural and marginalized populations, and increased funding and culturally-specific programs are essential to addressing the needs of these communities.

FVPSA was first passed in 1984 and was most recently reauthorized in 2010. Its authorization expired in 2015.

Madam Speaker, this bill marks an historic effort to acknowledge and address the unique suffering of family violence survivors from marginalized communities.

Different communities and cultures have different perceptions of domestic violence and reactions to it--therefore different communities and cultures need different treatments and prevention measures to address domestic violence.

That is why I am proud to support this bill, which includes provisions that are tailored to these specific populations.

Such provisions include:

1. Providing new grants to local programs serving culturally specific or traditionally underserved communities;

2. Increasing access for survivors from racial and ethnic communities to services by creating a national grant program to build the capacity to address domestic violence; and

3. Increasing funding for Native American tribes by allocating tribal grants as a set-aside to acknowledge their sovereign authority.

Simply put, receiving accurate feedback about our efforts will inform our decision-making, allowing us to adapt and improve upon our programs to reach more minority survivors.

It is these communities specifically that are in the most need of our help.

In my home state of Texas, 29 percent of domestic violence victims are Black despite making up only 12 percent of the population.

The share of domestic violence victims in Texas who are Native American is twice as much as the proportion of Natives in the general population.

In addition to addressing the special needs of minority communities, there is a litany of other exciting provisions in this bill that build upon the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, such as:

1. Increasing the funding authorization level to $253 million to address chronic underfunding that resulted in 11,000 people not receiving services in a single day.

2. Technologically updating the National Domestic Violence Hotline and improving hotline services for underrepresented populations.

3. Authorizing funding for tribal coalitions, which provide support to tribal domestic violence programs but are not currently authorized by statute to receive FVPSA funding.

4. Authorizing new grants of up to $150,000 to each state, territorial and tribal coalition to prevent domestic violence.

A bill of this nature is incredibly important for my home state of Texas, where it is estimated that 1 in 3 Texans will be a victim of domestic violence during their lifetime.

Madam Speaker, no member should be complacent with these egregious statistics.

With this bill's increased commitment to prevention and treatment of family violence, we are sending a message to survivors that you are not forgotten.

For these reasons, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 2119, the ``Family Violence and Prevention Services Improvement Act.''

Madam Speaker, I want everybody to know there is breaking news, and you are going to see something exciting on the floor of the House tomorrow.

First of all, Go Astros. The big orange is rolling into Atlanta. And I know the red, white, and blue is in Atlanta, called the Braves. But we are coming in because there is nothing more meteoric than the Astros.

And breaking news, we will be on the floor tomorrow with some exciting challenges. Go Astros, all the way to the World Series.

But I don't mind accepting a challenge, and tomorrow I think we will have some folks from Atlanta and Georgia and some folks from Texas and Houston on the floor tomorrow with some breaking news. Go Astros.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 730, ``Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.''

On January 6th the domestic terrorists who beat law enforcement officers and breached the Citadel of democracy of the United States wore insignias of White supremacist groups, waved Confederate flags, hung a noose on the lawn, and they were shouting racial epithets.

According to published reports and his own public statements, Mr. Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6th before they occurred: just before the day of the attack, Mr. Bannon told his listeners:

All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. . . . It's not

going to happen like you think it's going to happen. OK, it's

going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say

is, strap in . . . You made this happen and tomorrow it's

game day. So strap in. Let's get ready. So many people said,

`Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.'

Well this is your time in history.

At 12:15 p.m. on January 6th he said to the assembled multitude on the Ellipse: ``You will never take back our country with weakness.''

Less than an hour later, at 1:10 p.m., he admonished the crowd: ``We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you will not have a country anymore.''

At 2:11 p.m. the Trump-incited mob breached police lines on the west side of the Capitol.

Madam Speaker, the assault on the U.S. Capitol by domestic terrorists and insurrectionists rightly takes its place as one of the darkest moments in our Nation's history since the Civil War.

Madam Speaker, the January 6th insurrection caused tragic loss of life and many injuries, while leaving behind widespread physical damage to the Capitol Complex and emotional trauma for Members, Congressional employees, and the Capitol Police.

It bears repeating often that the Congress and the Nation owe undying gratitude to the men and women who answered the call of constitutional duty and heroically won the day on that bloody and deadly afternoon.

Madam Speaker, the domestic terrorists and seditionists who attacked the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 were not, as some of their ardent defenders and apologists across the aisle have stated falsely, on a ``normal tour visit''; nor was their effort to lay siege to the Capitol and disrupt the processes of government an act of persons who love their country.

And it is absurd to suggest that it was a celebration of the United States and what it stands for when the leading edge of terrorists desecrated the Capitol by offensively parading the treasonous Confederate flag through the building and when, because of their insurrection, several members of law enforcement made the supreme sacrifice and scores more were seriously injured.

Madam Speaker, we owe it not just to those who lost their lives during that day, but to all Americans to figure out exactly what happened and how that day came to be.

We must understand that day in order to prevent the intended purpose of the January 6th insurrection--to disrupt the Joint Meeting of Congress to tally the votes of presidential electors and announce the results to the Nation and the world--from ever occurring again, because it was the greatest threat to the American Experiment since the Civil War when the pro-slavery forces decided to make war rather than let the Nation survive and the pro-freedom forces would accept war rather than let the Nation perish.

The Select Committee has diligently continued in their duty to determine the causes and events that transpired during the insurrectionist attack.

Specifically, the Select Committee's purposes include:

To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex;''

To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power;'' and

To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to ``the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.''

In line with these purposes, the Select Committee requested information from Mr. Bannon central to its legislative purpose:

On September 23, 2021, Chairman Thompson signed and transmitted a subpoena to Mr. Bannon, ordering the production of both documents and testimony relevant to the January 6th attack on the Capitol.

The subpoena required Mr. Bannon to produce the documents on October 7 and required his presence for deposition testimony on October 14.

Mr. Bannon simply defied the subpoena--failing to produce the documents on October 7 and failing to show up for the deposition on October 14.

In a letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel on October 15, Chairman Thompson noted that Mr. Bannon had not even attempted to provide the Select Committee any explanation for refusing to comply with the Select Committee's demand for documents and testimony on a range of subjects that do not involve communications with the former President.

An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress, and in his October 8th letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel, Chairman Thompson warned Mr. Bannon that his continued non-compliance would put him in jeopardy of a vote to refer him to the House to consider a criminal contempt referral.

Mr. Bannon's failure to appear for deposition or produce responsive documents in the face of this clear advisement and warning by the Chairman constitutes willful failure to comply with the subpoena.

The purpose behind seeking this information is because Mr. Bannon played a central role in organizing the January 6th attack on the Capitol, and understanding this role is essential to understanding the context in which the January 6th attack occurred.

Mr. Bannon constructed and participated in the ``stop the steal'' public relations effort that motivated the January 6th attack.

Mr. Bannon planned political and other activities in advance of January 6th.

Mr. Bannon participated in a ``war room'' of promoters and prominent supporters of the ``stop the steal'' movement that met on January 5th.

Mr. Bannon communicated with President Trump several times in advance of the January 6th attack, urging him to take measures to interfere with the count of electoral votes and to make January 6th a day of reckoning.

In fact, according to published reports and his own public statements, Mr. Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6th before they occurred: just before the day of the attack, Mr. Bannon urged his listeners:

All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. . . . It's not

going to happen like you think it's going to happen. OK, it's

going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say

is, strap in . . . You made this happen and tomorrow it's

game day. So strap in. Let's get ready. So many people said,

`Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.'

Well this is your time in history.

In sum, Mr. Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the events of the January 6th attack and the American people are entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions.

As recognized by the Supreme Court, ``The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process,'' and that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.''

The contempt of Congress statute makes clear that a witness summoned before Congress must appear or be ``deemed guilty of a misdemeanor'' punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.

Further, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.''

The Supreme Court also recently reinforced this clear obligation by stating that ``when Congress seeks information needed for intelligent legislative action, it unquestionably remains the duty of all citizens to cooperate.''

Mr. Bannon has relied on no legal authority to support his refusal to comply in any fashion with the subpoena.

Mr. Bannon's refusal to comply with the subpoena is ostensibly based on his decision to ``honor [former President Trump's] invocation of executive privilege.''

However, not only has former President Trump had no direct communication with the Select Committee, but also the Select Committee has not received any formal invocation of executive privilege from former President Trump as to Mr. Bannon.

The Select Committee is seeking information from Mr. Bannon on a wide range of subjects that clearly cannot be covered by an assertion of executive privilege.

Mr. Bannon was a private citizen during the relevant period and the testimony and documents the Select Committee is demanding do not concern discussion of official government matters with the President and his immediate advisors.

In sum, there is no reasonable argument that Mr. Bannon's communications with the President regarding January 6th are the type of matters on which executive privilege can be asserted.

Finally, there is no conceivable assertion that executive privilege could apply to other information sought that does not constitute communications with Mr. Trump during his presidency.

Beyond communications between Mr. Bannon and Mr. Trump, the Select Committee seeks documents and testimony from Mr. Bannon regarding his own actions and interactions with other private citizens relating to the events of January 6th.

In light of this, rather than comply with Congress' inherent powers, and help heal the trauma this Nation witnessed on January 6th, Mr. Bannon has simply refused to comply with the Select Committee's subpoena.

Madam Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue; it is the very power of Congress to investigate matters of issue that is at stake.

For this reason, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 730, ``Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support H.R. 3110, the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act,'' which will close an unintentional loophole in the 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act.

The 2010 law requires employers to provide break time and a place for hourly wage-earning and some salaried employees to express breast milk at work for one year after the birth of the employee's child.

Unfortunately, this law unintentionally excluded a quarter of all working women--nearly nine million employees--from protection.

H.R. 3110 closes this coverage gap by extending the law's protections to cover salaried employees as well as other categories of employees currently exempted from protections, such as teachers, nurses, and farmworkers.

H.R. 3110 would also provide employers clarity on paid and unpaid pumping time.

The bill leaves in place existing law protecting many salaried workers from having their pay docked and clarifies that employers must pay an hourly employee for any time spent pumping if the employee is also working.

Lastly, the bill would ensure that nursing mothers have access to remedies that are available for other violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, women with children are the fastest-growing segment of the workforce, and balancing work and family is an important priority for all employees.

More than 80 percent of new mothers in the United States begin breastfeeding, 1 and 6 in every 10 new mothers are in the workforce.

New parents face an incredible amount of increased difficulties while juggling work, family and mental and emotional tolls that are exacerbated as a new parent.

According to a study published in Reviews in Obstetrics and Gynecology, breastfeeding provides health benefits for not only infants, but also for mothers.

For mothers, abstaining from breastfeeding has been associated with an increase in developing various types of cancers, type 2 diabetes, heart attacks, retained gestational

weight gain and metabolic syndrome in adult women.

For infants, not being breastfed is associated with infectious illnesses such as pneumonia, ear infections, gastroenteritis, and can increase the risk of developing childhood-onset obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, leukemia and SIDS.

This bill will ensure that mothers will no longer be forced to choose between their own health, their infant's health, and their income.

This includes individuals like Melissa Hodgkins, who has had to bring suit against her employer simply to provide workers with a clean, private place and breaks to breast pump at work.

Her coworkers were often of losing their paychecks to ask the airline to accommodate them; in fact, when some of her coworkers did ask for breaks and a place to pump, her employer actually prohibited them from pumping at work, and even forced them off the job without a paycheck.

The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act will stop such bad actions by employers and alleviate the disparities that currently exist between breastfeeding employees and their coworkers, sending a clear message that the workforce will protect and support women who opt to balance a career and motherhood.

For these reasons, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 3110, the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support H.R. 3110, the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act,'' which will close an unintentional loophole in the 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act.

The 2010 law requires employers to provide break time and a place for hourly wage-earning and some salaried employees to express breast milk at work for one year after the birth of the employee's child.

Unfortunately, this law unintentionally excluded a quarter of all working women--nearly nine million employees--from protection.

H.R. 3110 closes this coverage gap by extending the law's protections to cover salaried employees as well as other categories of employees currently exempted from protections, such as teachers, nurses, and farmworkers.

H.R. 3110 would also provide employers clarity on paid and unpaid pumping time.

The bill leaves in place existing law protecting many salaried workers from having their pay docked and clarifies that employers must pay an hourly employee for any time spent pumping if the employee is also working.

Lastly, the bill would ensure that nursing mothers have access to remedies that are available for other violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, women with children are the fastest-growing segment of the workforce, and balancing work and family is an important priority for all employees.

More than 80% of new mothers in the United States begin breastfeeding, 1 and 6 in every 10 new mothers are in the workforce.

New parents face an incredible amount of increased difficulties while juggling work, family and mental and emotional tolls that are exacerbated as a new parent.

According to a study published in Reviews in Obstetrics and Gynecology, breastfeeding provides health benefits for not only infants, but also for mothers.

For mothers, abstaining from breastfeeding has been associated with an increase in developing various types of cancers, type 2 diabetes, heart attacks, retained gestational weight gain and metabolic syndrome in adult women.

For infants, not being breastfed is associated with infectious illnesses such as pneumonia, ear infections, gastroenteritis, and can increase the risk of developing childhood-onset obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, leukemia and SIDS.

This bill will ensure that mothers will no longer be forced to choose between their own health, their infant's health, and their income.

This includes individuals like Melissa Hodgkins, who has had to bring suit against her employer simply to provide workers with a clean, private place and breaks to breast pump at work.

Her coworkers were often of losing their paychecks to ask the airline to accommodate them; in fact, when some of her coworkers did ask for breaks and a place to pump, her employer actually prohibited them from pumping at work, and even forced them off the job without a paycheck.

The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act will stop such bad actions by employers and alleviate the disparities that currently exist between breastfeeding employees and their coworkers, sending a clear message that the workforce will protect and support women who opt to balance a career and motherhood.

For these reasons, I encourage all Members to support H.R. 3110, the ``Pump for Nursing Mothers Act.''

[From ACLU, Sept. 30, 2021]

The PUMP Act Would Protect Nursing Workers Like Me

(By Melissa Hodgkins)

I took Frontier Airlines to court for making it impossible

for me to pump breast milk at work. Other workers shouldn't

have to fight for their rights like I did.

When started my career as a flight attendant, I never

imagined that I wouldn't be able to continue breastfeeding

after I went back to work. I thought that, like most

workplaces, my airline would be required by federal law to

provide workers a clean, private place and breaks to pump at

work. (That's thanks to a provision known as the Break Time

for Nursing Mothers law.)

But it turns out my employer isn't. That's because flight

attendants are among the approximately 9 million women who

are excluded from the law's protection--along with other

transportation workers, teachers, agricultural workers,

nurses, and many others. A bill before Congress right now--

the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act--would fix that. Congress

should act now to pass it.

I first realized the pickle I was in when I became pregnant

with my first child and found out that my employer, Frontier

Airlines, didn't provide any accommodations for nursing moms.

I'd watched other flight attendant moms trying to make it

work pumping on the job--and I saw how stressful it was for

them.

They were too fearful of losing their paychecks to ask the

airline to accommodate them. When some of my coworkers did

ask for breaks and a place to pump, Frontier actually

prohibited them from pumping at work, and even forced them

off the job without a paycheck.

That was when I started to feel like Frontier was making me

choose between my career and breastfeeding my baby. I believe

breast milk is optimal for babies, and I wanted to give him

those health benefits. At the same time, I didn't feel great

about pumping in an unsanitary airplane lavatory, and having

to scramble to find time to pump between flights, especially

given my unpredictable schedule. I was worried I'd lose my

job if I had to pump on duty and got reported. Even though I

desperately wanted to keep nursing my baby, I just couldn't

see how I could make it work. It was a wrenching decision,

but I decided I had no choice but to give up breastfeeding in

order to go back to work and support my family.

No woman should have to make that kind of decision. But

because of the gap in coverage under the current law, too

many of us still do. The ACLU is representing me in a lawsuit

arguing that Frontier's treatment of pregnant and

breastfeeding pilots and flight attendants is discriminatory.

But if the airline had not been exempt from the duty under

the existing federal Break Time Law to provide breaks and a

clean place to pump, we probably would have never had to take

Frontier to court over that in the first place.

The PUMP Act would give workers like me the protection we

need: a clear requirement that all employers must provide

workers who are nursing with the basic accommodations they

need. Solutions exist in all industries--including airlines--

that would allow employees to pump safely. And the bill would

strengthen the law in other ways, extending protections from

one year to two years, clarifying that it covers situations

like adoption or stillbirth, and ensuring that when employers

are not in compliance, there is a meaningful way to enforce

it.

The bill has bipartisan support in Congress. Let's make

sure it becomes law so that all workers--no matter what

industry they work in--have the choice to continue

breastfeeding and the ability to get back to work.

Madam Speaker, it gives me great joy when I can come to the floor and really speak directly to the moms and dads and families that right now, as we stand on the floor, are probably looking to gather children from schools, looking at what they are going to do over the weekend, maybe doing grocery shopping and looking at the resources that they do have or do not have.

It is important that we immediately pass the Build Back Better Act and that those who have a difference of opinion realize that it is always the greater good that America has always been about. When we have gone to war, we have not gone to war to be an offender. We have gone to war to defend principles of democracy.

I believe the Build Back Better Act will provide greater pricing of prescription drugs, strengthening the Affordable Care Act, expanding Medicaid for some 12 States. The State of Texas happens to be one of them, where 733,000-plus people are uninsured. These are working people. Expanding Federal Medicaid is going to help those people in States like Kansas and South Dakota. If they won't speak for themselves, I will speak for America.

In addition, the care economy really says that we must give childcare and universal kindergarten to people so that we can be advanced and our people can be helped.

Finally, let me say that voting is important and crucial. We must pass voting rights.

This is Build Back Better America, and build back makes America the best country in the world.

Madam Speaker, I rise to mark the 10th anniversary of the dedication of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial on the Tidal Basin, between the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials.

The location of this Memorial, the only memorial on the Mall dedicated to a person not an office holder or employed by the United States, is especially fitting, situated as it is between the author of the Declaration of Independence, which contained the audacious boast that ``we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and born with certain inalienable rights,'' and the greatest of all American presidents, the Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln, who understood that this nation could not survive ``half slave and half free'' and preserved the Union through the great contest, testing whether this nation, or any nation, can long endure.''

Dr. Martin Luther King was a dreamer but he was not just an idle daydreamer; he had an active faith that led him to share his vision of the beloved community where equal justice and institutions were facts of life.

When Jefferson wrote he Declaration of Independence in 1776, declaring ``that all Men are Created Equal,'' it was equally true that at that time and for centuries to come, African-Americans were historically, culturally, and legally excluded from inclusion in that declaration.

Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's ``I Have a Dream'' Speech, delivered 50 years ago, on August 28, 1963, was a clarion call to each citizen of this great nation that we still hear today.

The request was simply and eloquently conveyed--he asked America to allow of its citizens to live out the words written in its Declaration of Independence and to have a place in this nation's Bill of Rights.

The 1960s were a time of great crisis, conflict, and promise.

The dreams of the people of this country were filled with troubling images that arose like lava from the nightmares of violence and the crises they had to face, both domestically and internationally.

It was the decade of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, and the assassinations of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Malcolm X, Presidential Candidate Robert Kennedy, and the man in whose honor the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial is dedicated.

Dr. Martin Luther King's dream helped us turn the corner on civil rights.

It started with a peaceful march for suffrage that started in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965--a march that ended with violence at the hands of law enforcement officers as the marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

But the dream did not die there.

Dr. King led the Montgomery Bus Boycott, often with Rosa Parks, a boycott that lasted for 381 days, and ended when the United States Supreme Court outlawed as unconstitutional racial segregation on all public transportation.

Dr. King used several nonviolent tactics to protest against Jim Crow Laws in the South and he organized and led demonstrations for desegregation, labor and voting rights.

When the life of Dr. Martin Luther King was stolen from us, he was a very young 39 years old.

People remember that Dr. King died in Memphis, but few can remember why he was there.

On that fateful day in 1968 Dr. King came to Memphis to support a strike by the city's sanitation workers.

The garbage men there had recently formed a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to demand better wages and working conditions.

But the city refused to recognize their union, and when the 1,300 employees walked off their jobs the police broke up the rally with mace and billy clubs.

It was then that union leaders invited Dr. King to Memphis.

Despite the danger he might face entering such a volatile situation, it was an invitation he could not refuse.

Not because he longed for danger, but because the labor movement was intertwined with the civil rights movement for which he had given up so many years of his life.

The death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will never overshadow his life; that is his legacy as a dreamer and a man of action.

It is a legacy of hope, tempered with peace; it is a legacy not quite yet fulfilled.

I hope that Dr. King's vision of equality under the law is never lost to us, who in the present, toil in times of unevenness in our equality.

For without that vision--without that dream--we can never continue to improve on the human condition.

For those who have already forgotten, or whose vision is already clouded with the fog of complacency, I would like to recite the immortal words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

``I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia

the sons of former slaves and the sons of former shareholders

will be able to sit down together at the table of

brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the State of Mississippi,

a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering

with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an

oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day

live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color

of their skin, but for the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its

vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping

with words of interposition and nullification--one day right

there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be

able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as

sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted,

every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough place

will be made plain and the crooked places will be made

straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and

all flesh shall see it together.''

Dr. King's dream did not stop at racial equality, his ultimate dream was one of human equality and dignity.

There is no doubt that Dr. King supported freedom and justice for every individual in America and he was in midst of planning the 1968 Poor People's Campaign for Jobs and Justice when he was struck down by the dark deed of an assassin on April 4, 1968.

Therefore, it is for us, the living, to continue that fight today and forever, in the great spirit that inspired the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

In his 1837 Lyceum Address titled ``The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,'' Abraham Lincoln warned that mobs or people who disrespected U.S. laws and courts would always pose the most dangerous threat to the perpetuation of United States:

``All the armies of Europe and Asia . . . could not by

force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the

Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if

destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and

finisher.''

But Lincoln advised us of the best defense against domestic threats and attacks on our democracy: public reverence for the Constitution and rule of law as ``the political religion of our nation.''

Madam Speaker, democracy in America is not an act, it is an activity; it is never finished or complete but always in the process of making our union more perfect; and the nation will always be confronted with challenge of confirming the proposition that this nation, or any nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal can long endure.

Since the assassination of President Lincoln, who extended malice toward but charity for all, no one understood this better than the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

That is why he is one of the greatest Americans to have graced our Nation.

That is why he is so worthy of the national honor of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 730, ``Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.''

On January 6th the domestic terrorists who beat law enforcement officers and breached the Citadel of democracy of the United States wore insignias of White Supremacist groups, waved confederate flags, hung a noose on the lawn, and they were shouting racial epithets.

According to published reports and his own public statements, Mr. Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6th before they occurred: just before the day of the attack, Mr. Bannon told his listeners:

All hell is going to break loose tomorrow . . . It's not

going to happen like you think it's going to happen. OK, it's

going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say

is, strap in . . . You made this happen and tomorrow it's

game day. So strap in. Let's get ready. So many people said,

`Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.'

Well this is your time in history.

At 12:15 p.m. on January 6th he said to the assembled multitude on the Ellipse: ``You will never take back our country with weakness.''

Less than an hour later, at 1:10 p.m., he admonished the crowd: ``We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell you will not have a country anymore.''

Madam Speaker, the assault on the U.S. Capitol by domestic terrorists and insurrectionists rightly takes its place as one of the darkest moments in our nation's history since the Civil War.

Madam Speaker, the January 6 insurrection caused tragic loss of life and many injuries, while leaving behind widespread physical damage to the Capitol Complex and emotional trauma for Members, Congressional employees, and the Capitol Police.

It bears repeating often that the Congress and the nation owe undying gratitude to the men and women who answered the call of constitutional duty and heroically won the day on that bloody and deadly afternoon.

Madam Speaker, the domestic terrorists and seditionists who attacked the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 were not, as some of their ardent defenders and apologists across the aisle have stated falsely, on a ``normal tour visit''; nor was their effort to lay siege to the Capitol and disrupt the processes of government an act of persons who love their country.

And it is absurd to suggest that it was a celebration of the United States and what it stands for when the leading edge of terrorists desecrated the Capitol by offensively parading the treasonous Confederate flag through the building and when, because of their insurrection, several members of law enforcement made the supreme sacrifice and scores more were seriously injured.

Madam Speaker, we owe it not just to those who lost their lives during that day, but to all Americans to figure out exactly what happened and how that day came to be.

We must understand that day in order to prevent the intended purpose of the January 6 insurrection--to disrupt the Joint Meeting of Congress to tally the votes of presidential electors and announce the results to the nation and the world--from every occurring again, because it was the greatest threat to the American Experiment since the Civil War when the pro-slavery forces decided to make war rather than let the nation survive. and the pro-freedom forces would accept war rather than let the nation perish.

The Select Committee has diligently continued in their duty to determine the causes and events that transpired during the insurrectionist attack.

Specifically, the Select Committee's purposes include:

To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the January 6, 2021 domestic terrorist attack upon the United States Capitol Complex;''

To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes ``relating to the interference with the peaceful transfer of power;'' and

To investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to ``the influencing factors that fomented such an attack on American representative democracy while engaged in a constitutional process.''

In line with these purposes, the Select Committee requested information from Mr. Bannon central to its legislative purpose:

On September 23, 2021, Chairman Thompson signed and transmitted a subpoena to Mr. Bannon, ordering the production of both documents and testimony relevant to the January 6th attack on the Capitol.

The subpoena required Mr. Bannon to produce the documents on October 7 and required his presence for deposition testimony on October 14.

Mr. Bannon simply defied the subpoena--failing to produce the documents on October 7 and failing to show up for the deposition on October 14.

In a letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel on October 15, Chairman Thompson noted that Mr. Bannon had not even attempted to provide the Select Committee any explanation for refusing to comply with the Select Committee's demand for documents and testimony on a range of subjects that do not involve communications with the former President.

An individual who fails or refuses to comply with a House subpoena may be cited for contempt of Congress, and in his October 8th letter to Mr. Bannon's counsel, Chairman Thompson warned Mr. Bannon that his continued non-compliance would put him in jeopardy of a vote to refer him to the House to consider a criminal contempt referral.

Mr. Bannon's failure to appear for deposition or produce responsive documents in the face of this clear advisement and warning by the Chairman constitutes willful failure to comply with the subpoena.

The purpose behind seeking this information is because Mr. Bannon played a central role in organizing January 6th attack on the Capitol, and understanding this role is essential to understanding the context in which the January 6th attack occurred.

Mr. Bannon constructed and participated in the ``stop the steal'' public relations effort that motivated the January 6th attack.

Mr. Bannon planned political and other activities in advance of January 6th.

Mr. Bannon participated in a ``war room'' of promoters and prominent supporters of the ``stop the steal'' movement that met on January 5th.

Mr. Bannon communicated with President Trump several times in advance of the January 6th attack, urging him to take measures to interfere with the count of electoral votes and to make January 6th a day of reckoning.

In fact, according to published reports and his own public statements, Mr. Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6th before they occurred: just before the day of the attack, Mr. Bannon urged his listeners:

All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. . . . It's not

going to happen like you think it's going to happen. OK, it's

going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say

is, strap in. You made this happen and tomorrow it's game

day. So strap in. Let's get ready. So many people said, `Man,

if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.' Well

this is your time in history.

In sum, Mr. Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the events of the January 6th attack and the American people are entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions.

As recognized by the Supreme Court, ``The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process,'' and that the subpoena power is a ``public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.''

Rather than comply with Congress' inherent powers, and help heal the trauma this nation witnessed on January 6th, Mr. Bannon has simply refused to comply with the Select Committee's subpoena.

Madam Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue; it is the very power of Congress to investigate matters of issue that is at stake.

For this reason, I rise in support of the rule governing debate for H. Res. 370, ``Resolution Recommending that the House of Representatives Find Stephen K. Bannon in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply with a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol,'' and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to be able to further defend and add to my statement regarding H. Res. 730 recommending that the House of Representatives find Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress.

It is well known that even from his own words and published reports, these are the words that Mr. Bannon told his listeners:

``All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.''

``It is not going to happen like you think it is going to happen. Okay. It is going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say is, strap in. . . . You have made this happen, and tomorrow, it is game day. So strap in. Let's get ready.''

``So many people through my life said, man, if I was in the Revolution, I would be with Washington at Trenton. Well, this is your time in history.''

There is no constitutional provision that would deny the January 6th Select Committee the right to receive information from Mr. Bannon after he has been subpoenaed for information regarding the insurrection, the riot, the attack on January 6.

The idea of executive privilege is exerted by the existing President, limited on a President of the United States no longer in office. In fact, Mr. Bannon has been gone from the White House since 2017. He has no legitimate basis.

Based on three equal branches of government, we cannot allow an individual to undermine democracy. This is a democratic republic, and I expect that the referral to the United States Department of Justice will be handled.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for her leadership. I am very glad that she has emphasized the unanimity and the unity of Democrats as relates to all of our constituents, all Americans, whether we are in New Mexico, Texas, or whether, we are in New York, whether in Mississippi, Illinois, California, whether we are up in the New England States or down the coast in the Carolinas and down to Florida and all in between, it is important, again, to emphasize to the American people that this is about you.

Breaking news. Each of these elements that we are fighting for--and we take no discomfort in you saying at the bus stop, while taking your child to school, what are they talking about?

It is our responsibility to let you know what we are talking about and to let you know that the Congressional Progressive Caucus has been talking and working and talking and working. We now are at a point where we will say to you: We will not negotiate against ourselves.

But we are the engine to get it done working with the Quad Caucus, the Tri Caucus, and the Democratic Caucus.

So, Mr. Speaker, you have heard that there are numbers that may be different from $3.5 trillion of which I still stand on. But we are working to see how we can respond to the American people, and that is you have indicated that there is a framework that will change my life. I want to see it sooner than later.

So here is where we are. There is the INVEST Act, though, we are talking tonight about Build Back Better. I want you to know that, Mr. Speaker, as some would say, it is on the table. It is on the table for broadband. It is on the table for high-speed rail. It is on the table for electric cars. It is on the table for the trials and tribulations of your commute where there is a pothole here or a freeway that is out of commission or a bridge or a dam, it is there. So go home and be sure that we will have that framework.

But then Build Back Better is what I want to conclude my remarks on today. We will provide you with the kind of quality of life that gives you more time with your children, that gives you better wages, that gives you climate change response, and gives your child a universal pre-K and kindergarten to ensure that they are competitive around the world; and, yes, Medicaid for those who never lived in States where they opted into the public option or expanded Medicaid. So if you are working every day, we want you to have health insurance, and on Medicare we want that hearing, we want those eyes, and we want dental to be part of your life.

This is what is the bowl of fruit that is there for you. The next step as we work out for how these plans will be implemented is to get it done. My view is what I heard from a Member--I will give him credit--from Arizona. Put them together and let's move once we organize and analyze the pieces of it. And I will just leave, Madam Manager, my comment on the table.

Let us be meticulous and careful about what plans or what items can accept reduction because you don't want something that does not work because you have reduced it in time or dollars. Let's be meticulous, and that is what we are doing. And let's make sure that we are meticulous in ensuring that the final bill is an impactful bill on lives in terms of years of how long the program lasts and in terms of dollars of how much impact it will have.

We as the Congressional Progressive Caucus have been in the center and in the mix, and we will do the Nation's bidding. We will do it right because we stand for the people of this Nation, and particularly those who cannot speak for themselves. That gives me pride. I am delighted to be here on the floor with the gentlewoman to ensure that those voices can be heard.

I know working with the President we will get it done. Put it together, and let's move.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to pay tribute to Secretary Colin Powell, America's general.

Secretary Powell was more than an astute general and outstanding civic leader who served our Nation's President. He was kind-hearted, a genuine American hero. He was a man of conscience and integrity who bravely stood against divisiveness and lived life bringing people together.

As the son of two hardworking Jamaican immigrants, he knew the importance of education and hard work. General Powell, as he prefers to be called, was the first African-American National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State, and he had 35 years of service in the military for this Nation.

He described himself in a New York Times article, and he talked about himself in the third person: ``Powell is a problem-solver. He was taught as a soldier to solve problems. So he has views, but he is not an ideologue. He has passion, but he is not a fanatic. He is, first and foremost, a problem-solver.'' And that he did.

In Vietnam, he was a hero when the helicopter that he was in crashed, and he pulled out his commander, Major General Charles M. Gettys.

Also, he was a passionate servant of the people. When he retired, he organized America's Promise. America's Promise helped at-risk children. I remember seeing his program, hearing about his program, and supporting his program.

To his wonderful wife, Alma, and his children, he remains to us an extremely beloved individual. I am reminding all Americans, let us remember that a general can be soft and strong and remain a hero to all of us in nature, spirit, sacrifice, and deeds.

The Nation has lost a great leader, but more importantly, the Nation has lost a symbol of what is best and great about America.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I am delighted to be with the gentlewoman and as well to be fighting for what is right, and that is what we are doing here today. We are fighting for what is right.

I am amazed when I hear people want to try to understand whether or not we are on the floor of the House talking about a safety net or whether we are on the floor of the House trying to create a care economy.

Well, let me be very clear. The clearness of my point is that the care economy is alive and well. It may be called by many names, but it is millions of women who have in the decades--some without names, some without categories--have been working to take care of people. They have been layered from those, as we have heard my sisters and my colleagues indicate, that they have been parents who were in the last stages of life, they are working mothers who need childcare, and they are particularly care workers themselves who don't have childcare.

So the Build Back Better Act is what you want, America.

Many people say: What is in the bill?

This is what you want. You already have gotten portions of the child tax cut. It is a credit, but I like to call it a child tax cut. That is in there to be continued.

And I have heard the stories from my constituents, making ends meet, getting diapers and formula, and paying rent to be able to keep a roof over the head of toddlers and babies of single parents, mostly women. So we know how important the child tax credit is.

But then we talk about childcare and when we talk about kindergarten that will be universal. These are in the early stages of life. So I am excited.

Let me just mention one deviation, Madam Speaker. Let me just mention one deviation, and that is that in Texas we have got a compounded problem, people without childcare and people without healthcare because we never opted in--I say we--the State Government never opted into the expanded Medicaid. So we have working parents with 766,000 who are uninsured in the State of Texas.

Can you imagine, Madam Speaker, working parents with children who have no childcare; and they are not insured, and they have no healthcare?

So can we ease their burden?

Can we ease their burden?

Quickly let me ease their burden and ensure that--very quickly let me pay tribute to a school in Humble, Texas, where I met a young woman by the name of Aquila Gillespie who runs a subsidized childcare facility who desperately needs this childcare program which is going to allow her working parents--they are working parents in the care industry--who come to her with children at night, who have children who are, in fact, in early education, meaning that they are first and second grade. She works hard to open this school because most of the parents who enroll them in the school cannot afford childcare. These men and women are working people, and they work at night.

I stand here to join with my colleagues to say, what does America want? They want to know that this bill is going to help them. You can see how colorful it is, Creative Kids.

And that is Aquila. I want her to be known on television because she did this as a young woman, a young woman who was a single parent at the time. She hires and employs mothers and others who are in the working class.

Let me say childcare, America, is what you will get with the Build Back Better Act.

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Law Enforcement Caucus and a senior member of the Committees on Judiciary and Homeland Security, and the Chair of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I rise to commemorate National Police Weekend, which runs from

today, Friday, October 15, through Sunday, October 17, 2021.

The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial is the nation's monument to law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty.

Dedicated on October 15, 1991, the Memorial honors federal, state and local law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for the safety and protection of our nation and its people.

Carved on its walls are the names of 22,611 officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout U.S. history, dating back to the first known death in 1791.

Added to the Wall this year will be the names of the 295 police officers who lost their lives in the line of duty in 2020 and an additional 99 officers who died in previous years but whose stories of sacrifice had been lost to history until now.

Also to be added are the names of 182 officers who were lost to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

Madam Speaker, enshrined on the Memorial Wall of Honor also are the names of 1,831 fallen peace officers from the state of Texas, the most of any state, including 115 members of the Houston Police Department who gave their lives to keep their city safe.

To this Roll of Honor will be added the following heroes from Texas:

Caleb Daniel Rule, End of Watch: May 29, 2020, Fort Bend County, Texas, C.O., Pct. 4

Mark Christopher Brown, End of Watch: July 26, 2020, Harris County, Texas, C.O., Pct. 5

Johnny Ramos Tunches, End of Watch: November 2, 2020, Harris County, Texas, S.O.

Cornelius Bernard Anderson, End of Watch: July 12, 2020, Harris County, Texas, S.O.

Juan Menchaca Jr., End of Watch: June 13, 2020, Harris County, Texas, S.O.

Raymond John Scholwinski, End of Watch: May 6, 2020, Harris County, Texas, S.O.

Dennis Roy Oliver Jr., End of Watch: October 2, 2020, Highland Village, Texas, P.D.

Lemuel Delray Bruce Jr., End of Watch: October 16, 2020, Houston, Texas, F.D.

Christopher Charles Lewis Brewster, End of Watch: December 7, 2019, Houston, Texas, P.D.

Ernest Leal Jr., End of Watch: November 27, 2020, Houston, Texas,