Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that my colleague from Maryland, the distinguished Anthony Brown, is presiding, having served in Iraq and served in the U.S. Army for a 30-year stint.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Representative Crow, for his leadership on this issue and in offering this legislation.

Representative Crow, like Congressman Brown, is one of the Members of this House from a new generation of service who wore the uniform of our country in the post-9/11 conflicts.

These veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, like Representative Crow, understand what we must do to support our friends who stood with us, who risked their lives and the lives of their families with their American partners.

The mission of our Armed Forces in Afghanistan over the past 20 years has been clear, although very extended: destroy the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and deny al-Qaida a safe haven from which to threaten global security in our country. Today, Osama bin Laden is dead and al-Qaida has been routed. Terrorism, however, has not gone away.

Our troops are now coming home. The fate of the Afghan people will surely be determined by them, with our help, with us standing by. America will continue to support the Afghan Government and its security forces, but it is up to them to show the Taliban that there is no military solution and that their resolve is evident by their defense of their Nation.

As American personnel return from Afghanistan, that country's civil war will continue, and we cannot leave our Afghan partners behind. We talk about leaving no American behind. That is an absolutely essential premise as we send our men and women into harm's way. Nor should we leave behind any of those who facilitated our efforts, who stood with us, who risked their own lives and put themselves in jeopardy.

No one has any illusions about what the Taliban would do if they had their way and what they will do in those places they already control. They will take it out, and they will, in fact, literally take out those who stood with us and facilitated our efforts. There can be no doubt the punishment they would inflict on Afghans who stood alongside the United States and our allies.

We can only imagine the horrors that would befall their families in retribution. This legislation recognizes that these Afghan allies have earned safety in our country for themselves and for their loved ones. It would expand the visa program and expedite processing to help ensure there is a path to America for Afghans who worked side by side with our troops, our diplomats, our development professionals, and our partner forces in carrying out our missions there.

While President Biden is already taking executive action to bring some of these allies here, legislation is needed to ensure that all of them can make it safely out of harm's way. It should be said, of course, that they will all be vetted to ensure that, in fact, they are coming to the United States and will be consistent with the security of our country and our people.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill today in a very bipartisan way. This is not about Democrats. It is not about Republicans. It is about an effort that Republican and Democratic administrations pursued and received help in doing so. Each vote is not only an assent for this sound policy, but a gesture of our deep appreciation for the service of our allies.

Let this vote remind the world that our country's steadfast foundation, our highest ideal remains our bonds of friendship, loyalty, and trust. Let us remind our friends and foes alike that Americans keep faith with our allies, and let us practice that in this body and at the White House.

I ask my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike: Vote for this bill. We can argue about differences of opinion on our effort in Afghanistan, but when we do something, whether we argue one side or the other, when we ask people to help us in that effort, help us, America, our men and women in uniform in harm's way, when we ask those to help us, it is important for us to keep the faith with those who do. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes postponed until 10:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. I want to make that clear. That is an acceleration from 12 p.m. We have a lot of business to do next week. We have a lot of appropriations bills, so we want to make sure that we are not meeting late, late into the night.

So on Tuesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business.

On Wednesday, the House is expected to meet at 11 a.m. for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will expect to meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business.

On Friday, the House will meet, as usual, at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

The House will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspensions will be announced by close of business tomorrow.

In addition, the House will consider at least 7 of the 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2022.

Recognizing the importance of completing our work well in advance of the deadline at the end of September, I would let the Members know that, unfortunately--well, first of all, let me say, we have marked up all 12 bills, and they have been reported out of committee.

The Senate has not reported out, nor considered a single appropriation bill. And we have 60 days before the end of the fiscal year, approximately, give or take.

The House will consider a seven-bill minibus, H.R. 4502. That bill will include seven appropriations bills: the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill; and Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies; Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies; Financial Services and General Government; Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies; Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies; Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

There will be additional bills on the appropriations. There are, obviously, after the seven, five additional appropriation bills that will be available for consideration. Three of those bills, as I understand it, have been noticed by the Committee on Rules for amendments to be filed. So they will be ready to go next week, and I am hopeful that we will be able to move some of those bills next week.

They will be the Legislative Branch appropriation bill; the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriation bill; and the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation bill. That will leave the Department of Defense bill and the Department of Homeland Security bill.

Lastly, additional legislative items are possible. And that will be our schedule for the week to come. I expect it to be long days, which is why we are going in at 11 a.m. on one day and at 10 a.m. on two of the days, which we usually go in at 12. I would hope that that would preclude us from going very late at night, but I think everybody ought to expect that we will be here into the evening.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. He is certainly accurate that the Hyde amendment has been in our bills for a very long period of time. What I think is not completely accurate is that it has been a bipartisan support, has enjoyed bipartisan support, and that there were Democrats who obviously supported the Hyde amendment.

And I realize that this has made it controversial, having been left out of the bill. I don't know what the Committee on Rules is going to do; we will have to see what they do. But in any event, I want to tell you that a large number on our side of the aisle believe that a constitutionally protected healthcare matter for women ought not to be determined by their financial ability.

So there is controversy with respect to Hyde. There is also controversy with respect to Federal employees as well, that I know well, because I chaired that subcommittee. We give to Federal employees the healthcare benefit, but then we say they can't use it for some things. Actually, that money is their money; it is not our money. It is given in compensation for their services.

But in any event, so there are controversies, I would tell the gentleman, and I am not sure exactly what the Committee on Rules is going to do and, therefore, don't want to speak for it.

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman can explain it. I think, frankly, your party is hoist on its own petard. We brought to this floor, with Mr. Katko and Mr. Thompson agreeing on the process, offering to the House an equally divided five-and-five commission; the five Republicans being totally in the ambit of the minority leader. We brought it to the floor; the subpoena power being equally divided between the parties and having to cooperate in accomplishing the issuance of the subpoena. And very frankly, although there was some discussion of it, there was no doubt that the staff would have been resolved. The question of being equal staff on the Republican and Democratic side would have been resolved in the Senate.

I see the gentleman shaking his head. I can tell him, I know it would have been resolved; period. And the Republican Party objected to that commission, equally divided, five and five, with the minority leader strenuously lobbying against it being passed in the United States Senate. It was not passed in the United States Senate.

Press asked me, If it is defeated in the Senate, what are you going to do? I said, We are going to move forward, of course. And that is what we are doing. We are moving forward.

Now, the makeup of that committee, three of the persons who were appointed by the--excuse me--were recommended by the minority leader were accepted by the Speaker. And I am not going to spend a long time going into the quotes of the two or their premise, but all I can say is when asked the question, Ms. Cheney, who I know you folks have kicked out of leadership because she tells the truth.

Well, that is certainly one of the statements, however.

That is one opinion.

Well, I clearly know we don't share that view, but it was referenced that, well she may have told the truth but she ought to stop telling the truth.

And that was one of the references that were made as you replaced her as your third in line because she--from our perspective--and I think from a large perspective of the American people--told the truth, and she continues to tell the truth.

And she was asked the question: What do you think about this nonpartisan investigation? She said, I am absolutely confident that we will have a nonpartisan investigation that will look at the facts; that it will go wherever the facts may lead. There are three members from the minority leader proposed that the Speaker did not object to. She has objected to two members. And the rhetoric around this from minority leader and from those two members has been disgraceful. Thus, this must be an investigation that is focused on facts. And the idea that any of this has become politicized is really unworthy of the office that we all hold and unworthy of our Republic.

So I don't blame you, and I probably would have taken the same reaction as you have taken. But very frankly, from the Speaker's perspective, and from others, this needs to be a commission that does in fact commit itself to going where the facts lead and determining the who, what, where, when, and why.

I have some very strong feelings as to why the insurrection, or as some say, the tourist visit--on your side of the aisle, Mr. Whip--the tourist visit that resulted in the death of a number of people, terrorizing Members of this House who thought their lives were in danger because people were trying to break into the House Chamber.

The rationalization of that activity has been rampant by many on your side of the aisle. We have some strong feelings on this, and we are going to get to the facts. And the American people will make the ultimate judgment, obviously. And we want to see that commission, again, hoist on your own petard, the overwhelming majority of you voted against a commission. Five Republicans appointed by the minority leader--appointed by, not recommended by--and five Democrats; subpoena power shared, and notwithstanding the fact that some of you, apparently, don't agree. I guarantee you, it would have been equal staffing. That would have been resolved. That was not a really big issue.

It was a make-up issue to vote ``no'' in the United States Senate because, in our view--so you understand--Donald Trump didn't want the commission.

So, Donald Trump was saluted, and we didn't get a commission, which was a commission that almost exactly to the jot and tittle, as Mr. Katko said, what the minority leader asked for.

So, you don't like the result now. I get it. But I believe, as Ms. Cheney said, this is going to be a factfinding select committee. Witnesses will say what they are going to say.

By the way, one of the people that was rejected by the Speaker may well be, and maybe both, witnesses before the select committee. I don't know that. Nobody has told me that. But that may be the case.

So, we are going to proceed. I know there is disagreement. That is not surprising. But you looked the opportunity that you asked for in the eye and rejected it, so here we are.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, is that a quote about Mrs. Greene?

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we passed said the Speaker would appoint all the members. These Members were not kicked off; they never got on.

Liz Cheney was asked whether that was the appropriate thing to do, and her response was--you had her quote: ``I agree with what the Speaker has done.''

Now, the reason she agreed--yes, they have raised questions, and on your side, you wanted to raise questions. You wanted to look at everything but January 6. Maybe January 6 as well, but you wanted to look at this incident, that incident, the other incident, the incident over here. Are they relevant incidents? Sure, they are; but not to January 6.

Clearly, when you were in charge, you didn't look at some of the incidents that happened while you were in charge that were similar in nature. Very frankly, I think those incidents ought to be looked at, but not by this commission because they were incidents that did not involve insurrection; did not involve stopping the work of the Congress of the United States; did not terrorize Members of this House.

Now, I know that some of you have had pictures taken of you in this House. You looked pretty terrified to me. You thought there was something serious happening. This stuff that this was a tourist visit is absurd.

The issue of dissembling is not new. President Trump put that in an art form. If he didn't like what was going on here, he created something over here with a tweet or a comment or an action that he took. That is the shell game.

The issue is: What happened on January 6? What was the insurrection about? Why were people coming into the Capitol saying: Let's hang the Vice President of the United States--not of our party.

People shake their heads. I am not sure why they are shaking their heads. They saw it on television. They see it on the tapes over and over and over. They see people being convicted. I happen to think the sentences are too short. It was treason. It was treason based upon a lie.

We need to get to the bottom of it. What the Speaker has done is make sure that we are going to get to the bottom of it, notwithstanding the fact, and I will repeat again, all of you had the opportunity to vote five--five--shared subpoena, and the leader was empowered to appoint anybody he would want.

The legislation that passed this House said the Speaker would appoint--the Speaker. Did she consult with the minority leader? She did. Did she disagree with two that he appointed? She did, and she did not appoint them. That was in her power. And I agreed with her, and Liz Cheney agreed with her.

Why? Because that would have been dissembling, not looking for facts. Mr. Jordan has said over and over again that he believes the election was stolen. Court after court after court after court said no proof. No proof.

So, we are where we are, and we are going to proceed. We are going to proceed, and if the Speaker decides to retain the three and name two others, so be it.

We are going to proceed. We are going to proceed, and we are going to get the facts, and we are going to get those facts known to the American people. It is going to be widely covered. There are going to be a lot of witnesses. We are going to find out the who. Maybe that is the problem: the who, the what, the where, and the why.

For the first time in history, Americans, Trump signs waving, stopped the business of the Congress of the United States--an insurrection and, from my view, a treasonous act. So, we are going to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman believe that the three Members that the Speaker accepted and was willing to appoint would not have asked those questions?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Your side had an opportunity to support the Capitol Police. Your side had an opportunity to support law enforcement. Your side had the opportunity to increase the capability of the Capitol Police to respond to insurrectionist, violent, and criminal agents.

Your side had that opportunity, and what did it do, to a person?

It voted ``no,'' and we passed it. We passed support of the Capitol Police. We passed support to strengthen our defenses. We passed legislation to try to make the Capitol more secure and our Capitol Police safer. We passed that legislation with not a single one of your votes. It went to the Senate, and it sits. You read what that is doing to the morale of the Capitol Police along with some of your comments about the Capitol Police.

So you had that opportunity.

I will say to the Speaker, Republicans had that opportunity. Just as they rejected the five and five, they rejected support of the Capitol Police.

Seventeen of them voted against giving them a Gold Medal.

Why?

Because the insurrection was mentioned in the resolution, and, of course, there was no insurrection. It was a tourist visit, as they ambled politely through the Halls of the Congress saying how appreciative they were of the efforts being made by their Democratic Representatives.

If you saw it that way, if you believe that, it is impossible for me to understand why.

So I tell the whip, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican Party has had two opportunities to have an even, fair commission. They rejected them, apparently, according to what the whip says, because we didn't want to look at Seattle, we didn't want to look at this city or that city or the other city or this, that, and the other.

By the way, President Biden made it very clear that those who committed criminal activities were not demonstrators, they were criminals. Biden said that, and I agree with him.

What they didn't want to look at is who recruited the crowd that came in here, who riled that crowd up, and who deployed them to the Capitol of the United States for the specific objective of stopping the steal, and what he meant, of course, is our acting.

His Vice President, whom he talked to on numerous occasions about stopping the election, concluded that that was not legal, that was not within his authority, and so he acted consistent with the law. That really annoyed Mr. Trump.

So here we are. We should have had a bipartisan commission. We should have moved that forward, and, yes, we should support the Capitol Police by adopting the supplemental.

By the way, the Senate supplemental is more in terms of dollars than the House supplemental. So it is not a question of we spent too much money to do this to make the Capitol safe, to make the Capitol Police armed, to give them the opportunity to get the intelligence that they need to proceed.

But what a distraction that the Capitol Police weren't prepared.

The question is not: Were they prepared?

The question is: Why did American citizens try to commit insurrection and treason in the Capitol of the United States and stopped our work?

Not for very long. We came back, we did our work, and we got it done to the benefit of our country, our democracy, and our image around the world. Our democracy was resilient.

Nobody was angrier, I will tell you--and I think Mr. Scalise, you were there--Mr. Speaker, nobody was angrier about what was happening that night than Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Senate, who said he believed subsequent to his voting against impeachment, but notwithstanding that, he believed the President bore responsibility, as the minority leader said, not all responsibility, but bore responsibility.

So we are going to look at this. You can talk all you want. Your leader has now decided he is going to withdraw the three and not participate. We regret that. But it is not going to stop us. It is not going to stop our getting at the truth. It is not going to stop our having the American people know the who, what, where, when, and why of the first time since 1812 when a foreign power invaded our Capitol that the Capitol of the United States was invaded by people who were seeking to undermine the democratic processes under our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

You had an opportunity to support the police and you voted with those who wanted to defund the police. All of you had an opportunity, just a few weeks ago while we had a bill on the floor, to support, to fund the Capitol Police to make them safer, more effective, and better able to enforce the law,

and you all, to a person, voted ``no.'' You had the opportunity, and you voted with those who you say on our aisle didn't want to do that. But it passed.

Why did it pass?

Because the overwhelming, overwhelming, overwhelming majority of Democrats--it is the only reason it passed--voted to support the police, our Capitol Police. I will tell you that is also true of our Members in terms of supporting law enforcement at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Are there some who say some things?

Yes. There are some people who say some things on your side--I have quoted a couple of them--that I am sure you don't support. But having said that, the proof is in the eating of the pudding. We had a bill on the floor that supported the police. You voted against it, every one of you.

Mr. Speaker, you can talk all you want about supporting them, but, very frankly, the bills you are going to be voting on next week support the police. They are not defunding.

Unlike the Trump budgets. If you look at the Trump budgets, who cut law enforcement funding?

Trump budgets.

Check me on that, and then come to the floor and say: Hoyer is not telling the truth. Check me.

You had an opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, the minority had an opportunity to support the police. They all voted ``no.'' The Senate is doing the same. It is a shame because it is undermining the morale of the Capitol Police. You have seen that reported in the newspapers. This is not me saying it. They don't understand why.

Mr. Scalise is absolutely right. The Capitol Police have kept him, in particular, and others who were attacked by a crazed, apparently left- wing, but crazed bad person, he may be mentally defective, but he did a very bad act, and he was targeting Republicans. We all stood up when Mr. Scalise was in the hospital and thanked the Capitol Police for protecting him and others on that site. That was a terrible, terrible, venal criminal act. The guy was probably a Democrat. I don't know. We have called him out for being that. That is what we ought to all do.

On January 6, some very bad criminal people acted in this Congress and in this Capitol against our democracy and against our Constitution, and we want to study it. We want to get the facts so it doesn't happen again and so we know who is fomenting this insurrectionist psychology and who rationalizes it on this floor now.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We have brought them to the floor. We are going to continue to bring them to the floor, and we hope Republicans support them.

We created 3 million new jobs; more jobs in our first 5 months than any administration in history--the gentleman forgot to mention that figure--double the monthly rates of the 5 months prior to that under the Trump administration.

The average number of new unemployment insurance claims has been cut in half. Last week, that number was about 400,000. The same week last year, it was 1.5 million under the Trump administration. Small business optimism has returned to its 2019 average. The economy grew at 6.4 percent in the first quarter. Independent projections from CBO, the IMF, the Federal Reserve, the World Bank, OECD, and many others all forecast America this year reaching the highest level of growth in nearly four decades.

Furthermore, as the gentleman knows, the Director of the Federal Reserve has opined that he thinks, yes, there is a surge in inflation. Yes, we are concerned about it. The Federal Reserve is watching it. We are watching it. We want to keep inflation in check.

The gentleman referenced that we are paying people not to work. Let me remind the gentleman, we had four bills which did similar things which were passed in an overwhelming bipartisan fashion last year, overwhelming bipartisan fashion, and none of them would have become law without the signature of President Donald Trump.

Now what happened? Donald Trump left, and bipartisanship left with him; not because he was so bipartisan, but he thought that what we were doing was good for the people, and therefore, I think he thought, good politics. I think that is accurate.

The fact is that this economy is now doing exactly what we want it to do. It is growing. Now it surged. There is no doubt about that, and that surge has resulted in inflation hiking at a higher rate than we would like, including the products that the whip mentioned, Mr. Speaker.

We need to contain inflation because it does rob those particularly on fixed incomes. But the multitrillions that were spent last year, one of which, the CARES Act spent--was almost a unanimous vote in this House--$2 trillion. So we did that because we believed that the magnitude of the challenge confronting us by COVID-19, both to the health of our people and the health of our economy, demanded such a robust response.

One of our Members who had been vaccinated--some Members hadn't been vaccinated--has come down with it. Now, hopefully, the vaccinations that he has will moderate any adverse impact of this delta virus. But I would say to the gentleman, it is a little bit like the commission, that we want to focus on the bad news, not focus on the good news. The gentleman wants to focus on other news, not the central news of the insurrection, and I understand that strategy.

But there is a lot of good news happening in America. There is some bad news, too. Part of it is because people haven't gotten vaccinated. The gentleman's State has that problem; Mississippi has that problem; South Carolina and some other States have that problem; my State has that problem. Not to the extent of some other States, but all 50 States are seeing a surge. So giving up and getting off the field at this point in time is not appropriate.

I think that we are going to find that the President's program that he suggests, as he says, and I agree, will have a generational impact for decades to come in making sure that our economy continues to grow; that our people are educated; that we expand the middle class; lift people out of poverty, as we did with children who are now 50 percent of them are going to be lifted out of poverty. That is good news for America. It is good news for all of us. Those kids are going to be better educated and make more productive contributions to our society.

So I hope a number of Members will support pieces of legislation that will carry that vision of the President into fruition, and we will work toward that end.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It was not radical spending in 2020, because Trump signed the bills. Trump left, and it became radical spending. That is situational ethics, Mr. Speaker. I will leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. As he knows, the President of the United States has strongly expressed support of those who are seeking freedom and liberty in Cuba. He said that shortly after the demonstrations occurred. He has maintained that position. I share that opinion with him, and we are discussing what action we might be taking here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, if you mention Jerry Lewis from California, our Jerry Lewis probably wouldn't be the first one you would think of. You would think of Dean Martin's sidekick.

When I first met Jerry Lewis some 40 years ago, I guess, now--how long has Jerry been gone? Thirty-two years plus however long he has been gone--I thought of Jerry Lewis. ``Oh, Jerry Lewis, yes, he is on the committee.'' I thought of the comedian Jerry Lewis.

To some degree, Jerry Lewis was a comedian. He was a wonderful guy, wonderful spirit, a wonderful person. I served with him, as I said, for 32 years, both in the House of Representatives and on the Appropriations Committee. Actually, that is not really right. I served with him 32 years, but I was only on the committee for 23 years before I became the majority leader in 2006 and then went off the committee.

Jerry Lewis is coupled in my thoughts with a guy named Vic Fazio, who was also from California, who was also on the Appropriations Committee, who was one of my closest friends and still is. I think about the two of them because Jerry Lewis and Vic Fazio, for a number of years, headed up the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee together. They were a team, a positive team, a team that agreed that this institution was worth protecting and worth serving.

As I think of Jerry Lewis, I lament the fact--and in doing so, I want to thank Ken Calvert, also a member, for seeing me in the hall and saying, ``Are you doing this Special Order?'' Mr. Speaker, if he hadn't talked to me, I wouldn't have known, and I wouldn't have gotten this opportunity to speak.

Much has been said of what he did, but what Jerry Lewis and Vic Fazio represented were Members who thought about the institution, not about party. They were representative of a large number of people in this body who served when I came here in the 1980s and the 1990s who shared that view. Tom Cole is sitting here. He is one of those Members that shares that view.

As I think of Jerry Lewis, I lament the fact that we have lost the Jerry Lewises--not all of them, but too many--who made this body a collegial body, not a confrontational body.

That doesn't mean we didn't have severe disagreements. I remember Jerry Lewis, at one point in time, said, as chairman of the committee, he was going to move Goddard Space Flight Center, which is in my district, some 3,000 or 4,000 people, to California. We had a little tussle about that. The good news was that Barbara Mikulski chaired the committee in the Senate, and the chances of that happening were zero. But we had a tussle about that. It was a friendly tussle, and I really don't believe he was real. He was just sort of getting a little leverage.

Jerry Lewis was a man of this institution, the Congress, and of the Constitution. He cared about this country; he cared about this institution; and he worked positively and constructively for both.

The fact that he was a Republican and I was a Democrat was somewhat irrelevant. That doesn't mean it was not relevant in terms of our having differences. The parties had differences, and there were contentious times. At that point in time, he was on one side, and I was on the other.

I am, I like to think, a man of the House, but I am also a man of the Appropriations Committee. I love the Appropriations Committee. I love the Appropriations Committee because it was a committee where compromise, frankly, was easier.

Philosophical differences are tougher to compromise on. Money is not so tough. We have $100. I am in the majority, so I get $60, and you get $40. That is relatively easy. It is much, much more complicated than that, but it is a committee in which you can decide priorities based upon where you want to put your money. I think it is a little easier than on issues that are deep, philosophically held beliefs.

I wanted to speak, and I thank Ken Calvert for giving me a heads-up that this Special Order was happening, because we need to get back to the Jerry Lewises and Vic Fazios. I lament the fact that we are so contentious in this body. I lament the fact that there is so much tension in this body.

Everybody in this body has been elected by their neighbors and friends and people who don't know them because that is the only way you can get here. I, therefore, believe that everyone in this body is due respect, even those I vigorously disagree with, because they have been sent here by the people.

But we have lost that sense of camaraderie, and we have lost the sense that, for the most part, we are going to work together.

I came here when Ronald Reagan was elected President. I came here in a special election. Even though we had contention, and we had the Boll Weevils, et cetera, the overwhelming majority of the House, Democrats and Republicans, felt like working together.

I will close with this. I loved Jerry. He was my dear, dear friend. What he represented, I think, was so important. But we have lost the sense that we are all working together for the country, for the people.

I don't mean we have lost it individually, but it seems to me that the camaraderie and cooperation that existed for a long time that I have served in this body is very tenuous at best now. Very frankly, I think it was made even more tenuous in the last administration.

I don't think we are going to get back there. Part of it was because the Democrats, when I came here, had been in charge for about 20 years, and there wasn't a real sense that everything one did would change the complexion or the control of the House of Representatives. Now that is the case, so it is a lot more contentious. People are thinking, ``If we do this or do that, maybe we will win the majority.'' That was not the case then.

I want to thank Jerry Lewis. I want to thank Arlene. I want to thank their family for being the kind of people who made those of us on the other side of the aisle feel like that was just an aisle but we were Americans together, Members of the House of Representatives together, working on behalf of our country and our people and to make the House of Representatives the kind of institution of which the American people could be proud.

Thank you, Jerry Lewis. God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Pallone for yielding, and I thank him for his work on this piece of legislation, along with Mrs. Dingell, a member of the committee. Obviously, the gentlewoman's deceased husband was chairman of this committee and ranking member for many, many years and was a leader in many respects on addressing environmental challenges. This is an environmental challenge. There is no disagreement on that. There, obviously, is disagreement on specifics.

The gentleman who just spoke, in a very knowledgeable and thoughtful way, said he hopes this legislation moves forward, but he is in opposition to it. I understand he does not want it to pass. But his comment was that, hopefully, this would be perfected in the legislative process.

Now, I do not claim to be, Mr. Speaker, an expert on this chemical. I do know, however, that it affects my district, and every single congressional district in our country is affected by this challenge. That is because every district has faced the challenge of PFAS contamination, which has affected nearly 2,800 communities according to an analysis by the Environmental Working Group. I heard a figure of about 9,200 sites as well from the ranking member.

Like countless other districts in the country, Maryland's Fifth District, which I have the privilege of representing, contamination has been detected at military installations. We are proud of our military installations. Pax River is a, I think, world leading air test, research, and evaluation center for naval air, as well as other air, including helicopters of the Army. Also in my district is the Naval Research Laboratory, Chesapeake Bay Detachment.

The citizens surrounding them are concerned, rightly, about what the contamination may have done to the water they and their children drink or bathe in. Thankfully, the defense authorization that we enacted in 2019 required our military to transition away from the use of PFAS chemicals in firefighting fluids, a major source of contamination.

However, the PFAS pollution that has already occurred needs to be cleaned up, and this legislation would set requirements and deadlines for EPA to do so. Our citizens deserve to have that done. We must prevent PFAS chemicals from entering drinking water used by our communities. I think there is no disagreement on that.

PFAS has been called a forever chemical. Apparently, the biological fact of life is that it does not degrade over long periods of time, because they can linger in the human body for a whole lifetime, causing health effects ranging from cancers to reproductive and immune system deficiencies.

For 4 years, the previous administration claimed that it would take action through the EPA to protect Americans from PFAS contamination. Perhaps if they had done so, we wouldn't have this legislation; but they did not do so. They failed to protect the American people from these harmful chemicals. So the committee has acted in this instance and previously.

Now it is time for Congress to act. Again, I am not an expert on this legislation, but I do know that the committee has carefully weighed how to make sure that we move forward, and in the view of people more expert than I, will not preclude every chemical from being utilized in needed and important items that we use every day in our society, but will provide, because of the designation as a hazardous material, that it be cleaned up where it is necessary to do so.

It ensures that EPA finally takes measures to prevent future release of PFAS chemicals into our environment and clean them up where such contamination has occurred.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me, not just because this is so important to the people living in Maryland's Fifth District, but because it is critical to all Americans living in each and every one of our districts.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Senate to join us in taking this step to protect Americans' access to drinking water and look carefully at the issues that have been raised by the ranking member, legitimate issues in the sense that, yes, we ought to make sure that we are doing the right thing and that the good is not outweighed by the bad.

In this instance, I think it is very clear that the good of this bill, the objectives of this bill, and the specifics of this bill, will redound to the benefit of the American people and each and every one of our communities, and I urge my colleagues, therefore, to vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask the House to join me in recognizing Garrett L. Ressing for his thirty years of outstanding federal service as a civilian attorney for the Department of the Navy's Office of the General Counsel (OGC). He lives in Southern Maryland, in the Fifth District, and I am honored to represent him and so many other talented and hardworking federal civilian employees in Congress.

Since he began his distinguished career with OGC in l990, Garrett has held several attorney positions. Notably, he became a member of the Senior Executive Service in November 2008. In April 2015, he was selected to serve as the Deputy General Counsel, and in March 2019 he was designated Principal Deputy General Counsel. During his tenure in this last position as the Navy Department's most senior career attorney, Garrett twice served as the Acting General Counsel of the Navy--a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed position--from March 2019 to January 2020 and again from January 2021 to August 2021.

Garrett excelled at advising the Secretary of the Navy during an unprecedented global pandemic. He provided steady leadership during a time of major change within the Department of the Navy and furnished crucial legal and operational advice necessary to move the Navy

forward in light of an increasingly complex global security environment. Garrett has distinguished himself as an attorney who worked tirelessly to provide proactive, accurate, and innovative legal advice on legally complex, sensitive issues impacting operations, procurement, fiscal matters, labor, ethics issues, environmental concerns, and intelligence law. Furthermore, he has demonstrated an unmatched record of leadership while overseeing the provision of legal advice by more than 800 civilian and military attorneys within OGC, ensuring the successful execution of Navy and Marine Corps missions worldwide.

Throughout his career, Garrett has received various awards for his outstanding contributions to the Navy, the Department of Defense (DoD), and our nation. These include the Department of the Navy Meritorious and Superior Civilian Service Awards, the Presidential Rank Award of Meritorious Executive, and other performance-related accolades.

Madam Speaker, I offer Garrett my congratulations on retiring from federal service after a career of great contribution to our Nation's defense and to the well-being of all those who have served in the Navy. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in recognizing Garrett L. Ressing as he reaches this milestone and in wishing him all the best in the future.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Jason G. Thomas for his ten years of service with the House's Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), Logistics & Support. It is with a heavy heart that I share the news that he passed away in September 2020 at the young age of forty. Jason was a constituent of mine from Maryland's Fifth District.

Jason began his career with the CAO in January 2015, joining the Logistics & Support group responsible for moving furniture and carrying out the massive effort every two years of moving offices during the Congressional transition. Prior to his time with the CAO, Jason worked with District Movers, where he gained a strong understanding of logistics and organization, which served him well in his House employment.

Among his many hobbies, Jason had a love of acting, he enjoyed mechanics, he was an avid football fan, and he proved a very talented drummer. He was a graduate of the Massanutten Military Academy. Jason's coworkers and friends remember him for his infectious smile and incessant positive attitude. Some of the sentiments they shared after he passed away included that: `He was always smiling,' and `What a great guy.' Also: `He would always greet you with a smile and a hello and was such a light to be around.'

Prior to his death, Jason was being recognized for his exceptional service while confronting the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. He was tasked with helping to assist with the enormous job of processing the distribution of thousands of laptops and electronics to House Members and staff who were suddenly required to work remotely. The Asset Management Department specifically requested Jason by name, not only because of his talent but also because of his sunny disposition and positive attitude while performing his duties. He was soon to be recognized for his contribution to this effort by former Chief Administrative Officer Phil Kiko.

Jason lived in Clinton, Maryland, and is survived by his parents, Henry and Idena Thomas, his three sisters--Sonya, Tanya, and Yolanda-- and his three young children, fourteen-year-old Kason, thirteen-year- old Juatez, and ten-year-old Karen.

Madam, Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Jason G. Thomas for his service and contributions to this House. I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to, the Thomas family for their tremendous loss. The gifts of Jason's life and his tremendous dedication to service, family, and community will always be remembered.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 7 of House Resolution 535, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bills: H.R. 678; H.R. 1036; H.R. 1079; H.R. 1158; H.R. 1250; H.R. 1754; H.R. 1833; H.R. 1850;

Madam Speaker, the American public watching this debate must think that some of the verbiage was written by Lewis Carroll. Lewis Carroll, of course, wrote ``Alice in Wonderland,'' where up was down, black was white, left was right, and right was left.

There is an advantage, I would tell you, of not having served here for some time because you don't know what happened in the past. The gentlewoman who represents the Rules Committee said, gee, there have been other investigations.

I remember how outraged I was when the Republicans had the eighth investigation of Benghazi, outraged not only because, as it has been opined by the gentlewoman, that, oh, we looked at this, but because for the first seven times, they found nothing there, ``they'' being the Republicans. And so, they logically concluded, we need to have another study until we get the answer we want.

Lo and behold, the investigator, Mr. Gowdy, felt to be a person of extraordinary intellect, which he was, had a study, a partisan study, and found exactly the same outcome.

The studies to date have found that there were many things done wrong, but they were limited in their scope, which is, of course, the one thing that the Republicans wanted to do with the bipartisan commission they asked for, that the Speaker gave them: five Democrats, five Republicans; equal power over subpoenas. And the staffing, clearly, had been worked out on the Senate side.

In the final analysis, the issue was really: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Madam Speaker, like many of our colleagues and many Americans, I had hoped that Congress would establish a bipartisan commission to investigate the terrible, tragic, almost unthinkable events of January 6, when we saw Americans assault this Capitol, these Representatives on this floor and the floor down the hall, calling for the death of the Vice President of the United States and the Speaker of the House, one of the most tragic events in the history of our country.

The House brought a bill to this floor. The Speaker brought to this floor what the minority leader asked for, except for one thing, scope, the fear that we would look at the very essence of what January 6 was about.

Yes, some accuse us of concluding that, because the President recruited people to come to Washington, incited them in a fiery speech, and then deployed them to the Capitol of the United States, Heaven forbid that we would look at him as being a cause of that event. That is only three things that he did.

The House voted on May 19 to do exactly that. And then what happened? Well, the Republicans all voted against it. Not everyone, strike that. There were a few courageous souls that did vote for it because they wanted to see the truth and get the truth. In fact, some of them articulated the truth, and to that extent, their party kicked them out of the leadership.

That is what they said: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The Bible says the truth shall set you free, and the people need to know the truth because that is what will keep them free.

We voted, with hopes that the Senate would concur in the House's judgment, that a bipartisan commission consistent with what Leader McCarthy asked for, except for scope--we wanted the commission to be able to look at the event that was the cause of the commission's creation. Afterward, however, the former President tweeted: ``Republicans in the House and Senate should not approve the Democratic trap of the January 6 commission.''

What was the truth? That was the trap. That was the trap that the President feared. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

The Senate was forced to choose between a bipartisan process that many Republicans had earlier supported--you remember, of course, that the ranking member of the committee that reported out the commission bill supported it and urged his colleagues to do so as well. It was not a partisan effort; it was a bipartisan effort. But, of course, Mr. Trump hadn't spoken at that point in time.

They were forced to choose between the President and the truth. Sadly, they chose former President Trump, not truth.

However, the American people are still demanding answers and accountability, and they deserve both. They want to know that steps are being taken to understand what happened and take measures to ensure that it never happens again. It had never happened before, and we don't want it to happen again.

Just like after the 9/11 attacks, we need to come together, as we did after 9/11, to ensure that a full investigation is conducted on an independent and bipartisan basis.

Now, yes, this select committee is not even, as other investigative committees have not been even. We would prefer even, which is why we brought it to the floor. Mr. Katko preferred even, which is why we brought it to the floor. Mr. McCarthy had asked for even, which is why we brought even to the floor. Sadly, House and Senate Republicans made it impossible to establish a commission on a bipartisan basis because you have reached your conclusion. And your conclusion is: Let's move on. Let bygones be bygones. Let the past be forgotten.

Who said that? John Thune. He said: We don't want to--the gentlewoman has said it. All they want to do is drag this on because we don't want it to adversely affect our election. That is what was said. Senator Thune essentially said that.

Notwithstanding that, the House is going to do its job, and we are going to create this select committee to achieve the goal of truth. We will do it on behalf of the people we represent, who watched in horror as their Capitol was assaulted by a violent mob bent on overturning a United States election. That is insurrection.

The people who thought it was a tourist visit I don't think were on the floor. You heard the gentlewoman from California talk about her experience. It was not a tourist experience.

I hope my Republican friends will participate in this committee's work in good faith with their Democratic colleagues to carry out its mission. If they see things being done that are not the truth, then they ought to tell the truth. They ought to bring up the facts as they see them.

That is what our adversary system is. We have an adversary system here in this House. We have an adversary system in our legal system. Engage, be involved, raise the flag as you see it.

I hope we can come together to create the bipartisan commission so many have sought and still seek. The launching of this new select committee will not preclude the alternative objective.

So I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this resolution today, and I hope we can begin to uncover exactly what happened and take responsible steps to prevent the events of January 6 from reoccurring, and, yes, find out who is responsible.

Who is responsible for inciting a mob to come to the Capitol of the United States to overturn the election of the President of the United States?

That was their stated intent.

Madam Speaker, I urge a strong vote for this select committee Americans deserve and want and let us pray they get the truth.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I am glad to be back.

Madam Speaker, I have been out for 2 weeks, and now that I have a new knee, I am good for another 20 years. That is what they tell me. They guarantee me that.

Madam Speaker, when I brought this bill to the floor just about a year ago, I referred to our Capitol Building as a sacred space for democracy, a symbol around the world of democracy. The intervening months have shown us, in ways we could not have imagined then, just how true that statement was and is.

Sadly, we in this House, our colleagues in the Senate, all who work here, experienced on January 6 a wrenching reminder of how democracy demands our eternal defense and vigilance. We watched our temple of democracy defiled by a violent mob of insurrectionists. For many of us here, that was a watershed moment, seeing such evils pervade the halls of the American Capitol.

However, Madam Speaker, for African Americans, who have been serving here, working here, and visiting here for many decades, that sense of defilement of this sacred space is all too familiar for them.

Our colleague, the former speaker of the California Assembly, Karen Bass, made that clear when she spoke. When they see individuals like John Calhoun, Charles Aycock, and James Paul Clarke celebrated in stone and bronze in these halls, they are reminded that, for so much of our history, the leaders and leading institutions of our government and country did not view them as equal or, at times, even human.

When they enter the solemn Old Supreme Court Chamber and stare into the cold marble eyes of Roger Brooke Taney, they are reminded that, at one time, the highest court in our land declared that Black lives did not matter.

Mr. Speaker, we ought not be surprised when our fellow citizens of color raise signs that say: No, America, Black lives do matter. That is somewhat what this debate is about.

In the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision written by Justice Taney, a distinguished citizen of Maryland revered in his time for his intellect and his accomplishments, Taney, in this terrible decision, quoted the Declaration of Independence, which all of us quote so often: ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'' Today, we would say all men and women are equal, irrespective of color.

But this Dred Scott decision ought to teach us a lesson today. It ought to humble us today. When people around us say, ``Boy, that is the right decision,'' because it happens to be the decision of the moment, not a decision of history.

Beneath those lines, Taney wrote these: ``The general words,'' that is, that all men are created equal, ``The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family.'' Hear me, colleagues. This is Taney speaking in a decision where he is about to say Black lives do not matter.

He said, however, that it ``would seem to embrace the whole human family,'' not divided by color or gender or nationality or religion, the whole human race. And he went on to say: ``And if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood.'' I want you to think about that.

I want you to think about it, colleagues, with humility. Frankly, I want those who argue for the originalist point of view to think of that. Taney thought of that. And he thought, in his day, in 1857, the whole human family would be covered by ``all men are created equal.''

But notwithstanding that belief, he did not so rule because he was mired in the past, and the progress of those some 90 years had alluded him because he went on to say: But ``the enslaved African race were not intended to be included and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this Declaration.'' An originalist.

The Founders were human. They were extraordinary humans, but they were human. Their environment shaped their thoughts, as they do ours.

Taney's words were used by the Confederacy during the Civil War to justify the creation of a regime built to sustain the enslavement of African Americans in perpetuity, with no possibility of recognizing their humanity.

Even though Taney said that in 1857, that would have been the popular definition of all men are created equal, Blacks and Whites alike.

And those words have been used ever since by bigots and white supremacists to justify segregation, racial violence, and discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my fellow colleagues that we must not allow the author of those words to hold a place of honor in our Capitol. That is why I introduced this legislation along with Representative Barbara Lee; my dear friend of over a half a century, Jim Clyburn; Representative Karen Bass, former Speaker of the California Assembly; Chairman Bennie Thompson from Mississippi; and Representative G. K. Butterfield a North Carolina former Supreme Court Justice; and the present chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congresswoman Joyce Beatty from Ohio.

Because this building, this sacred space, this temple of democracy has been defiled for too long. We owe it not to forget history. We must learn from history. But we ought not to honor that which defiled the principles for which we think we stand and for which I think we do stand.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, to remove those symbols of slavery, segregation, and sedition from these Halls. How recently we saw, remembered the savage genocide in Tulsa just a few weeks ago, justified in the minds of many, I am sure, that these, after all, were not men who were created equal. They were not children created in the image of God. And therefore, some rationalized the taking of their lives because, after all, their lives did not matter, and therefore, no one was prosecuted, no one was held accountable.

As I said, Roger Brooke Taney was from my State of Maryland, and I acknowledge, as I was growing up as a kid in the late 1950s in high school and then in college in the 1960s, my party was the segregationist party. And my party decided that we did not want to be that party and that there was not a home for segregationists in the Democratic Party. That is a decision we made consciously, knowing full well the cost and that is why Lyndon Johnson said when he signed one of the civil rights bills: We may have just given up the South.

In our State capital of Annapolis, Mr. Speaker, we removed the statue of Chief Justice Taney, the highest ranking Marylander in the Federal Government in history. It had stood there when I was sworn in as a member of the State Senate. And when I listened to Governor Agnew give his State of the Union, it was on the site of the

Roger Brooke Taney statue on the east front of our Capitol.

If you turn and walk west through the Capitol of Maryland, you will come out on a park. It is the Thurgood Marshall Park, a testament to the progress and enlightenment that occurred from Taney to Marshall in our State.

The decision to remove Taney's statue was long overdue, but as the gentleman from Texas said Martin Luther King said: It is never too late to do the right thing. And this, today, is the right thing. It reflects our growth as a State as we have confronted the most difficult parts of our history and it will reflect our growth as we recognize it here, as we did overwhelmingly when we passed this last year. Over a third of my Republican colleagues joined the Democratic colleagues in saying Black lives do, in fact, matter.

Those who say we shouldn't teach about slavery or that we should sweep it under the rug or that we should skip over the lines in our Constitution that reference it, do a disservice to our understanding of America's greatness.

Jim Clyburn, our whip, a civil rights hero in his own right, likes to quote de Tocqueville saying that America's greatness is not that it always does the right thing. America's greatness is that it is willing to correct its wrongs. We are great because we approach our past with humility and openness. And we are great because we continue to protect our democracy through more inclusion, more tolerance, more justice, more equality, that all men and women, irrespective of artificial distinctions or real distinctions, are equal in the eyes of our Constitution and of our laws.

That is why Democrats and Republicans came together earlier this month to make Juneteenth a national holiday, overwhelmingly, a handful voting against that, in an articulation of our principles today, not yesterday. That was Roger Brooke Taney's great blindness. That is why I believe we can take this important step together today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House once again to join me in passing this legislation, to remove these statues and bust of Chief Justice Taney from the Capitol. Not to forget them. Not to say they weren't part of history, but they are not deserving of our honor. Not because we want to erase history but because we are determined to confront it.

As a Marylander, proud of steps we have taken in Annapolis, I believe that Justice Thurgood Marshall would be a far better ambassador for the greatness of American democracy and for our State of Maryland than Roger Brooke Taney. Where Roger Brooke Taney represents the worst of American justice and racism, Thurgood Marshall represents the best of justice and equality. He deserves to be honored in this Capitol for his trailblazing career and lifelong dedication to civil rights and equal justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans who believe we are a special, exceptional country because we lift up the individual and we protect the 1 against the 99 if the 1 is right. That is the essence of America. And even though they did not live it out perfectly, they articulated the perfection of all men are created equal. And endowed not by the Constitution, not by the laws of Congress, not by the majority vote of their fellow citizens, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

That is what this vote is about today, and I urge my colleagues, vote ``yes'' for America, vote ``yes'' for its principles that are so respected properly around the world.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate Chairwoman Maloney's leadership on this issue and so many other issues to protect the citizens, protect consumers, protect voters, and protect, frankly, those who stand up and say there is wrongdoing.

I heard the remarks of the ranking member, and I appreciate his thoughtfulness. But as I was listening to him, I am thinking: How do you make sure that somebody is not cowed by a President, any President, who is prepared to take adverse action without cause against somebody because he or she does not like the investigation they are undertaking?

As the gentleman may know, and as my colleagues may know, I urged a rule that we adopted in this House which said that it is a violation of our rules to out a whistleblower. We have put whistleblower protections in, but unfortunately, when we had whistleblowers come forward most recently, they were attacked and attempted to be outed, which would have subjected them, obviously, to the adverse consequences against which we tried to protect them in the legislation that we passed on whistleblowing. So, I see some analogy between these two.

I thank Vice Chairman Gomez, Chairman Connolly, Chairman Lynch, and Representatives Porter and Lieu for working on this legislation and supporting this legislation. I was proud to introduce it with the chair of the committee and proud to support it.

Madam Speaker, Americans deserve the highest standards of ethics, transparency, and accountability from their government. Federal agencies and officials work for the people, and they must be accountable to the people. That is why the previous administration's assault on the independence of inspectors general was so alarming.

This is not an attack on a specific administration. As the gentlewoman and chair of the committee has pointed out, we have a Democratic President now, so this is going to bind him. It is not going to bind his predecessors. If anything, it is certainly not anti-Biden, but it is to say: President Biden, we respect you, but we want to have inspectors general who have the confidence they can move ahead without fear of retribution.

Former President Trump removed or replaced, as has been pointed out, the inspectors general from the Departments of Defense, State, Health and Human Services, and Transportation. What kind of a check and balance is that, if a President can simply say, ``I don't like what you are doing. I am removing you''? I would suggest none, with all due respect to my friend.

These watchdogs must be able to act independently and be free from political pressure or threats to their careers. It seems to me that is a very commonsense, rational judgment to make. That is what this is about.

We introduced our bill to address the challenge exposed by the actions of the prior administration, that is true. But that has not been the only administration that has acted to undermine inspectors general.

I urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation today. It will build on the provisions that I pushed to include in the House Rules Committee, as I pointed out in January, which protects Federal whistleblowers by making it a violation of House rules for Members to reveal their identities.

Those who come forward to reveal misconduct or violations of the public trust need to be heard and must be protected from threats of retaliation. If that is not the case, it will undermine the very objective that we seek in creating IGs. They need to know that they can go to inspectors general or to Congress under strong whistleblower protections.

House Democrats, and I hope House Republicans, will renew the faith in government and ensure that it works for the people. We are determined to protect and strengthen government accountability.

I hope all of us, in a bipartisan way, will repair this very critical principle of accountability for the people of this country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank my constituent, Charlene Best, for nineteen years of outstanding service to the United States House of Representatives. She retired on June 3 from her role as Manager with the Asset Management Department of Logistics and Support.

Charlene has had a very distinguished career prior to her House employment. In high school and into college, she worked with the Department of the Navy. After her graduation in 1995, she went to work for the National Science Foundation as an Administrative Assistant, followed by a stint with the Census Bureau from 1999 to 2000. Later, she worked as an Executive Assistant for Booz, Allen, Hamilton.

Charlene had long wished to be a House employee and began interviewing in 2002, earning a position as a Special Assistant for the Office of the CAO in the Office Systems Management. She quickly moved through the ranks and became a Supervisor and, eventually, Manager with First Call from 2007 through 2015, before moving up to her current position. Charlene also served as a Move Coordinator during the many Congressional Transitions and brought her special talents and expertise to Members of Congress and their staffs.

When asked about the highlights of her career, Charlene has said how much she appreciated the mentorship of her boss, Tom Coyne, Chief Logistics Officer, and she credits him with helping her to grow professionally. She has also cited one of her first supervisors, Carol Nichols, as someone who saw potential in her and invested time and energy to help her advance in her career.

One notable contribution that Charlene made to the House was her participation in the lying-in-state of Rosa Parks, for which she earned Congressional recognition. She remembers this event with sober reflection. In addition, one of the most cherished memories from her House career was being present in the Capitol for the first inauguration of President Barack Obama. While relaying the story to my staff, she recalled being in the hallway of the Capitol on the path leading out to the inaugural stage, when President-Elect Obama walked within ten feet of where she was standing and gave her a friendly wink prior to stepping out onto the stage. She loves to tell this story to demonstrate the great honors she has felt working for the U.S. House of Representatives.

Charlene, like so many House employees, had been teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic, and she said that she felt lucky to have spent some `home time' with her daughter Jordyn, a graduating senior. It was a welcome opportunity to spend quality time with Jordyn before she heads off to college in the fall. In retirement, Charlene is looking forward to enjoying more time spent with her family and pursuing other opportunities.

I hope all of my colleagues will join me in extending our congratulations to Charlene Best for her many years of dedication and outstanding contributions to this House. I wish her many wonderful and fulfilling years in retirement.

Madam Speaker, my district, the State of Maryland, and our country have lost an extraordinary citizen, an outstanding contributor to education and leader for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Dr. Samuel L. Myers, who was a trailblazer for equality and a pioneer in economics and higher education, passed away at the age of 101 on January 8 and will be remembered at a memorial service later this month. I was honored to know him and work closely with him over the years to advance the important causes he championed.

Born in Baltimore, Dr. Myers was the son of Jamaican immigrants and grew up in a home that strongly valued education and public service. After earning his undergraduate degree in 1940 from Morgan State University and a master's degree from Boston University in 1942--both in economics--he was drafted into the U.S. Army and rose to the rank of Captain while serving in the Pacific Theater. At the time, of course, our military was segregated, and Dr. Myers was a trailblazer in speaking out against the injustices facing African-American servicemembers, risking court martial. Following his honorable discharge from service in 1946, he studied at Harvard University and completed his doctorate in economics in 1949, studying with some of the most renowned scholars at that time, including John Kenneth Galbraith.

As an economist, Dr. Myers focused on inequalities and the effects of segregation on African-American businesses and families. That interest led him into government service, and he worked as a research economist for the Bureau of Labor Statistics while teaching at his alma mater of Morgan State. Recognizing his leadership abilities and his deep commitment to education, Bowie State University selected him as its fourth president in 1968. During his tenure, which lasted until 1977, Dr. Myers reshaped Maryland's oldest HBCU and laid the groundwork for its success, preparing graduates to seize the opportunities of our twenty-first century economy. While pioneering the launch of computer science programs and new educational practices, he worked to secure funding for new buildings to replace those that were crumbling and dilapidated, and he supported students who had protested against unfair budgets that disadvantaged historically African-American campuses in Maryland and nationwide.

In 1977, Dr. Myers stepped down as President of Bowie State University but continued his passionate commitment to HBCUs. He became President of the National Association for

Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO) and continued to lead that organization for eighteen years. In that capacity, he lobbied for HBCUs and was instrumental in the 1980 Executive Order, signed by President Carter, directing that federal funding for higher education be prioritized for HBCUs, a principle that has since been expanded to include institutions serving Hispanic and Native American tribal communities. The recipient of many awards and recognitions for his contributions to equality in education, Dr. Myers continued even after his retirement from overseeing NAFEO to be a leader in this national effort, chairing the board of Minority Access, which helps build partnerships between minority-serving institutions and major research universities. He was also a longstanding supporter of foreign language programs and cultural exchanges that expand young Americans' views of our world and help build bridges with students and scholars from other nations.

Dr. Myers will be remembered as a man of vision and of service. His legacy will not be forgotten by the millions of students who were able to access high-quality undergraduate and graduate programs and pursue their dreams because of his tireless efforts. Maryland will long remember Dr. Samuel L. Myers among the pantheon of our great native sons and daughters who dedicated their lives and careers to the improvement of our society, the expansion of opportunities, and the cause of justice and equality for all.

I offer my condolences to his children, Dr. Yvette Myers and Dr. Samuel Myers, Jr., along with their families. Their father now joins their wonderful mother Marion Myers--who was his partner for sixty-four years--and their sister Judge Tama Clark, who passed away last year, in peaceful eternal rest. May his memory continue to bless and inspire so many in Maryland and in our country to pursue service and help build a more perfect union for future generations of Americans.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the late Rev. E. Baxter Morris, who passed away on May 2. His funeral took place on Saturday, May 15, at the church that he led for nearly half a century. Many of us in this House knew Rev. Morris as a gracious host when we traveled to Montgomery, Alabama, on the annual Faith and Politics Institute Civil Rights Pilgrimage. He and his congregants at the historic First Baptist Church welcomed us with a very moving service followed by a home-cooked meal that made us feel like we were part of their community. I spoke with him at those lunches and, like so many others, came to see his wisdom, patience, and grace. I know that Rev. Morris, who was the congregation's longest-serving pastor, will be deeply missed by all who knew him and worshiped with him.

One of my most cherished memories of congressional pilgrimages to the First Baptist Church and other now-sacred places is sharing the experience with my dear friend John Lewis. John would remind us of the time in youth when he helped organize and lead the Freedom Rides. That effort began 60 years ago this spring. In late May 1961, around 1,500 community members, Freedom Riders, and civil rights activists had gathered to worship at First Baptist Church, when they were besieged by a mob of as many as 3,000 white supremacists. Joining John Lewis inside were Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Fred Shuttlesworth, Diane Nash, James Farmer, and the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, who was the senior pastor of the church at that time. It took a historic intervention by President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, which involved calling out the Alabama National Guard, to break that siege and save the lives of those inside. That incident, known now to history as the First Baptist Church Siege, was a pivotal moment in the effort to desegregate public transportation across the South.

Thus when Rev. Morris became the senior pastor of First Baptist Church in 1972, it already had a storied history. He did his utmost to preserve that history and ensure that his congregants and visitors alike never forgot the important role that First Baptist Church played in the march for freedom, equality, and civil rights in our country. Indeed, at the lunches I attended with John and other Members of Congress, Rev. Morris would remind us that his church had been founded shortly after emancipation by those who had endured slavery. When a fire destroyed their original church building, the congregants banded together to build the current structure, donating bricks for its construction. For that reason, it is also known as the Brick-a-Day Church.

Rev. Morris understood that his pastoral work reached far beyond the walls of First Baptist Church. He regularly volunteered his time as a mentor throughout the Montgomery community, and he served as Chaplain for the Montgomery Police Department for more than two decades. The Operation Good Shepherd program organized with other religious leaders from across the city endeavors to help law enforcement de-escalate encounters with residents and promote cooperation instead of confrontation. I know that his presence and contributions will be greatly missed across Montgomery and its region.

I join in offering my condolences to Rev. Morris' wife, Rebie, and their family as well as the entire First Baptist Church community. I will never forget the wisdom he shared with us or his warm and kind welcome and the wonderful meals we had over the years fixed by the members of First Baptist.

Now, he and John and Martin and Ralph and so many other great men and women of justice and courage march on together in eternal peace.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank the chairman for his work.

I have been here a long time. This is my 40th year in the Congress of the United States. I came at the same time Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States. It was clearly a time of difference in the House and in the country between Republicans and Democrats, but it was also a time when, frankly, the John Katkos of the Congress were in the majority in the Republican Party. And by that I mean, Mr. Speaker, people who wanted to work together to get results that, while not perfect for either side, were good for the country.

So while I thank Mr. Thompson for the hard work he has done, I thank Mr. Katko as well for doing what Americans expect us to do, to come together, looking at a challenge to our country and to our people, coming to a decision to resolve those challenges and those problems.

That is what Mr. Thompson and Mr. Katko have done. Indeed, I think this is, in some ways, the best of days and, in some ways, the worst of days because we have seen today two Republican leaders turn what ought to be a nonpolitical issue, an issue with reference to a unique event, not just a demonstration that has occurred.

I grew up in the 1960s. Whether it was civil rights or Vietnam, there were a lot of demonstrations. But the Capitol of the United States was not attacked. It was not invaded. It was not breached.

The work of the Congress of the United States was not stopped because people were trying to get through the door, with some Members trying to stop them who then said: These are just tourists.

It is sad because what the minority leader in the Senate and the minority leader in the House said is exactly what Mr. Katko pointed out. They wanted a commission that was even, as the 9/11 Commission was even, so that both sides would have an equal voice.

What was the resolution that Mr. Thompson and Mr. Katko attained? Equal division, equal voice. Not only equal voice in terms of numbers but, for instance, one of the things that was controversial was about subpoenas. Mr. Thompson and Mr. Katko arrived at a resolution that said both sides have to agree, or alternatively, the committee can agree. In light of the fact that the committee is evenly divided, it would obviously have to be a bipartisan request for subpoenas.

Now, what we didn't agree on was the distraction and the dissembling. Let's look at this corner; don't look here. Let's look at this corner; don't look here. Let's look at that corner; don't look there. Don't look at just the invasion, the insurrection that occurred on January 6; look at everything else because maybe we can confuse the issue enough that we will lose sight of the insurrection on January 6. We ought not to do that.

I have been here a long time, but I also know the history of the House, and I do not know of any other instance that is analogous to January 6, not one.

In 1812, of course, there was a similar invasion, but it was from a foreign enemy. It was not the enemy within. I said that on the floor that morning as we finished the business of the House, notwithstanding the insurrection.

Mr. Speaker, it is vital that Congress establish a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate January 6, not some other date. That does not absolve any wrongdoing anywhere at any time. But it says that this unique insurrection is a danger to our democracy, not to Republicans or Democrats, to our democracy, to our Congress, to the people's House and the United States Senate, which was occupied. At least this House was not occupied.

But Members were terrified, work was stopped, and democracy, for a short period of time, was overtaken by armed, violent insurrectionists.

Certainly, each one of us ought to be very concerned about getting to the bottom of why that happened. How did it happen? How can we stop it from happening again? What are the resources that we need, and, yes, who was responsible? Some, perhaps, are going to vote against this because that is what they fear.

The 9/11 Commission, as Mr. Katko pointed out, made America safer. It made this institution safer. It made our law enforcement more acutely aware of the failures that led to 9/11. I hope this commission does the same. I have talked to numerous Republicans who tell me they think it was right that we focused on January 6. Don't be distracted. Don't cover up or make it more lacking in clarity by trying to deal with every problem that we may have. Focus on January 6.

Together, Mr. Katko and Mr. Thompson negotiated a bipartisan agreement to move forward with such a commission based on input from Democrats and Republicans. There are going to be a significant number of Republicans who vote for this bill.

Unfortunately, the truth has been a victim over the last couple of weeks. It was okay for Liz Cheney to tell the truth once, but when the former President of the United States kept telling a lie, and she said that is a lie each time that he said it, well, that was not appropriate, so she was removed. But the truth was removed with her. See no evil, hear no evil.

The commission, as a result of Ranking Member Katko's participation in these discussions, will be equally composed, as I said. It will have subpoena power that will be shared by both sides. I was pleased that we reached a bipartisan agreement and sad for this institution, for this country, for the American people who must think: Well, can't you agree on anything?

The minority leader got what he asked for, yet he won't take yes for an answer. Trump does not want this commission. That can be my only explanation.

Throughout my career, both in the State senate for 12 years, as president of the Senate, and here in this body for 40, I think I am known on the other side of the aisle as somebody you can work with. I hope that is the case because I think that is the way Americans want us to work.

President Trump opposes this commission. I am not sure why. It is deeply disappointing that there is a division among Republicans about whether to support the ranking member who worked hard to get to this place and got what the minority leader asked for, except for the distraction, except for the dissembling. He didn't get that. But he got everything else.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my Republican colleagues will think not about their politics, not about the former President, not about themselves. I hope they will think of the country, of this Congress, of this House. As they do so, I hope they say to themselves: We will vote for this legislation.

What if George Bush had said we shouldn't have a 9/11 Commission, perhaps out of fear that somehow the administration would have been perceived as being responsible for 9/11? They weren't. Wouldn't all of us have said: What are you talking about that we are not going to have a commission to see how we can protect the Capitol and why this Capitol was stopped from doing the work of our democracy?

This legislation is going to pass. It is going to pass on a bipartisan basis, and I want to thank Mr. Katko for having the courage and the integrity to stand up, fighting for what the minority leader asked for.

I say to Mr. Thompson that that is the funny thing about this. I hope Senators will think long and hard about rejecting this bipartisan compromise to move forward, to protect our democracy, and to lift it up as the beacon that it has been and needs to be not only for our own citizens but for all the world.

How sad that day was as the world watched, as TVs showed them America's citadel of democracy and of freedom invaded by its own citizens.

Vote ``yes.'' It is the right thing to do.