Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, once again, I urge opposition to this en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Johnson and House leadership for finding a path forward on this important bill. I am so pleased to see renewed enthusiasm for Federal scientific investment under this administration and in this Congress. The investments contained in the bill could hardly be more urgent. Over the past few decades, Federal investment in research and development has flatlined as a share of the overall U.S. economy. Meanwhile, our global competitors are jump-starting innovation and economic growth by accelerating investment. Without action, they will soon outpace us. America needs to improve the speed and scale of scientific research while promoting innovative solutions. This is a matter of national security. Members of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee have worked hard to advance bipartisan innovation bills included in this package as strong counterparts to the Senate-passed U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. The proposals offer a strategic and sustainable plan to grow American science, innovation, and technology to ensure our investments are aligned with the best interests of our scientific enterprise and builds on successful prior efforts. It includes provisions to diversify our workforce. Additionally, to firmly establish the U.S. as a global leader in innovation and to compete for generations to come, we must build our domestic STEM workforce and encourage startup companies to establish roots here. While increasing STEM scholarships for U.S. students, the act simultaneously draws the world's best and brightest STEM doctoral recipients and company founders to the U.S. It ensures that individuals who earned STEM doctoral degrees from top research universities will be eligible for permanent residence. Unlike Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany, our laws don't provide a visa option for company founders to start a new venture and create jobs in the United States. This act would fix this. I thank Priscilla Kim on my staff for the hard work she put into this, and once again, I thank our most wonderful chairwoman, Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, as the designee of Chairwoman Johnson, pursuant to House Resolution 900, I offer amendments en bloc.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Speaker, these amendments, although I am sure offered in good faith, diminish the value in the underlying bill. Not only the underlying bill, but the bipartisan amendments just adopted or that we will adopt tomorrow or Friday. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, Throughout our history, we have fought to advance justice and extend the right to vote, to ensure every American can freely and equally participate in our democracy. Chief Justice Earl Warren, in the Supreme Court's Reynolds v. Sims (1964) opinion, wrote that ``[t]he right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government.'' Even though top experts have repeatedly affirmed that the 2020 election was the safest and most secure in our Nation's history, Republican lawmakers across the country unleashed a wave of anti-voter and election sabotage laws, which experts predict will only intensify this year, seizing on a defeated president's Big Lie about widespread voter fraud. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, between January 1 and December 7, 2021, at least 19 states passed 34 laws restricting access to voting. The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act responds to this assault on our democracy. It includes two pieces of legislation vital to ensuring every American has free, equitable, and secure access to the ballot-- the Freedom to Vote Act and the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, versions of which have previously passed the House last year. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act also contains the Native American Voting Rights Act, a bill critical to ensuring the United States upholds its trust obligations and protects the voting rights of Native Americans. Under this legislation, every voter would be able to vote early or by mail, and would have the option of registering to vote electronically or in-person on any day of early voting or on Election Day. This provides voters with a variety of options that better fit the lives Americans lead in the 21st Century. The legislation would also unrig the political system by ending partisan gerrymandering. Gerrymandering may be the single biggest contributing factor to the bitter polarization we see today--ending it would be a monumental achievement. In most states, redistricting is done behind closed doors allowing the majority party to swing the outcome of upcoming elections, preserve the status quo, and ensure years of noncompetitive elections. The result is a troubling reality in which politicians choose their voters instead of voters picking their elected officials. Sadly, we are seeing this take place now in much of the country during this redistricting cycle, which is giving new opportunities to many of last decade's extreme gerrymanders. This is not what our Founding Fathers intended. Furthermore, it is counterproductive to a well-functioning democracy. The Redistricting Reform Act, a bill I wrote and introduced for several Congresses sought to address these unfair redistricting practices. It was included as a component of the For the People Act, which the House passed in this and last Congress, and it is included again, in part, in this landmark piece of voting and elections legislation, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. The redistricting reforms in the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act require that the congressional redistricting plans enacted during this redistricting cycle, and going forward, are drawn using specific criteria that, among other things, allow for coalition districts, expanded Section two Voting Rights Act protections, and protection of communities of interest. The bill also sets out judicial remedies where states fail to comply with the requirements of the bill, including a private right of action. Importantly, the bill prohibits partisan gerrymandering, and in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Rucho v. Common Cause, includes a clear standard for courts to apply in such cases. Under section 5003(c)(3), plaintiffs may ask a federal court to determine whether a state's plan has triggered a rebuttable presumption that it materially favors or disfavors a political party. A court's determination on whether to apply the presumption is intended to be quick and straightforward. The bill includes a formula directing courts to assess the partisan makeup of the new redistricting plan by referring to a specific set of previous statewide elections. Using the results of the partisanship assessment, a court must then apply one or more standard quantitative measures of partisan fairness. Currently, the only available measure that meets the description provided in the text is the simplified efficiency gap, a well-known measure in the field of political science. As confirmed by political scientists, other existing quantitative measures do not qualify because none of them calculate a benchmark share of seats based on a party's share of the statewide vote and measure the difference between that benchmark and actual expected seat share. However, the study of how best to measure partisan gerrymandering is evolving and the bill accounts for that: if a new measure that meets the definition in the bill is created and becomes ``standard'' in the field of political science, courts would be permitted to rely on that measure when applying the rebuttable presumption test. Of course, any non-standard measure that has been prepared principally for litigation may not be used. The rebuttable presumption test provides states with some leeway, and it will not lead to invalidation of every state plan with a partisan lean. A plan will be enjoined under section 5003(c)(3) only if, in 2 or more of the 4 historical elections assessed, it results in partisan advantage or disadvantage in excess of 7 percent or one congressional district, whichever is greater. The simplified efficiency gap may be measured using seat share or percentage, which is why a plan may be measured by both the 7 percent and 1 congressional district limit. To convert ``one congressional district'' into a percentage applicable to a given state, a court must simply divide the number 1 by the total number of congressional districts in a state. Thus, in a state with 9 congressional districts, the efficiency gap limit would be 1/9, or 11.11 percent. The 11.11 percent limit would apply because 11.11 percent is greater than 7 percent. However, in a state with fifteen congressional districts, the partisan advantage limit set by the law would be 7 percent, because 1 district equals 6.66 percent of the state's 15 districts, and 7 percent is greater than 6.66 percent. Notably, the prohibition on partisan advantage ``in excess of' one congressional district should not be read to exempt plans with a partisan advantage falling between 1 and 2 congressional districts. Looking at a state with 12 districts, a plan with a simplified efficiency gap of 9 percent would trigger the rebuttable presumption because 9 percent of twelve districts equals 1.08 districts. These redistricting reform provisions in the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act would have a significant impact both in mitigating this decade's gerrymandering and in helping to ensure the racial fairness of maps by eliminating partisanship as a defense for skewed maps.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. I'm good. * * * *. Okay. Thank you. Accordingly, the record of this deposition of Mark Meadows, now at 10:18 a.m., is closed. [Whereupon, at 10:18 a.m., the deposition was concluded.] Additional correspondence between the Select Committee and counsel for Mr. Meadows is as follows (continuing the exhibit numbering from above): 5. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman Thompson, Nov. 19, 2021. 6. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark Meadows, Nov. 22, 2021. 7. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021. 8. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman Thompson, Nov. 26, 2021. 9. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark Meadows, Nov. 28, 2021. 10. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman Thompson, Dec. 3, 2021. 11. Letter from Counsel to Mark Meadows to Chairman Thompson, Dec. 7, 2021. 12. Letter from Chairman Thompson to Counsel to Mark Meadows, Dec. 7, 2021. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TX141221.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH141221.087

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, Mark Meadows, a former colleague for many of us, left Congress in 2020 to serve as chief of staff to then- President Donald Trump. Sadly and shockingly, Mr. Meadows has admitted he played both an official and unofficial role in trying to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election. He has also admitted that he has responsive and nonprivileged documents and communications relating to January 6. In fact, he already sent some of those materials to our select committee charged with preventing a future attack on our Capitol. Now, the select committee needs to speak with him about the full plot leading up to January 6. For example, it has been reported that the White House was directing the Department of Justice to investigate outrageous and really crazy conspiracy theories to benefit Mr. Trump politically, as well as to orchestrate the dissemination of election misinformation. We need to talk to Mr. Meadows about this. We have learned that Mr. Meadows made a surprise visit to a State-run audit in Georgia, which led to the now-infamous call in which Mr. Trump improperly asked the Georgia Secretary of State to find votes. We need to talk to Mr. Meadows about that. We also need to ask him about text messages which he provided to our committee that show an official in Georgia texting Mr. Meadows during the Trump-Raffensperger call saying that they ``need to end this call,'' and emphasizing: ``I don't think this will be productive much longer.'' We need to talk to Mr. Meadows about that. We also know that during that same week in early January, Mr. Meadows was in direct contact with campaign staff and organizers of the rally at the Ellipse where his boss, the President, urged supporters to fight. We need to talk to Mr. Meadows about that. While domestic terrorists invaded the Halls where he used to work, Mr. Meadows interacted with many people, including some of our colleagues who were here in this Chamber. We have learned many of those interactions took place on his personal device. We need to talk to Mr. Meadows about that. Clearly, Mr. Meadows has important information about events that culminated in the violent attack on the Capitol and on our democracy. He must follow the law. He must cooperate with the select committee's lawful requests. No one is above the law. He must be held accountable for his violation of the law.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 3377) to empower the Chief of the United States Capitol Police to unilaterally request the assistance of the DC National Guard or Federal law enforcement agencies in emergencies without prior approval of the Capitol Police Board, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I want to highlight an important element of reform that came out of work a while ago from the House Administration Committee. Most Americans believe that if a foreign adversary reaches out to interfere in our elections, the campaign ought to report that to law enforcement. Instead, as we saw in the previous administration, campaign officials welcomed and, in some cases, even solicited foreign assistance for political activities. This bill creates a duty to report illicit offers of campaign assistance from foreign governments to law enforcement. It also clarifies what is a thing of value. It includes information sought or obtained for political advantage, like opposition research. It ensures that individuals engaging in misconduct with foreign actors to influence our elections would be held accountable. It also ensures that foreign money cannot influence our politics through State and local ballot initiatives and referenda, closing a loophole that recently was created by the FEC. Now, it is astounding to hear criticism of the idea that the FBI should be notified when a foreign adversary is trying to corrupt our elections. We all know that that should happen. To distrust our law enforcement agencies when it comes to protecting our country from this kind of attack--which is what it is--from a foreign adversary is shocking. Support this bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Michael T. Ptasienski, the fifth Inspector General of the House of Representatives, who is departing the House after 13 years of service. Mr. Ptasienski was appointed the 5th Inspector General of the U.S. House of Representatives on February 15, 2018. Prior to his appointment, Michael served as the Deputy Inspector General for Advisory and Administrative Services and, upon joining the House in 2008, the Director of the Management Advisory Services. Born, raised, and educated in the State of Illinois, Michael spent over 15 years working in consulting and management roles in the financial services industry prior to joining the House. Mr. Ptasienski brought great skill, knowledge, and a cooperative, pragmatic leadership style to the Office of Inspector General. Under Michael's leadership and his focus to help improve the operations of the House, the Inspector General's Office worked closely and effectively with other House offices to identify risks, highlight areas for potential improvement, and develop reasonable and sensible recommendations for the benefit of the House. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Ptasienski for his dedicated service to the House, and I urge my colleagues to join me in offering warmest wishes for success in his life's endeavors.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I would note that the gentleman from Indiana is incorrect. We are not pursuing a law enforcement investigation. Only the DOJ can do that. What we are doing is taking the steps that are provided for under the congressional contempt statute that has existed for many decades because the select committee's charge is to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6, who planned it, who paid for it, what was the intent, and what legislative steps can we recommend to remove future threats to our Constitution. To do that, we need information, both documents and testimony; and to get that we issue subpoenas. Now what is a subpoena? Is it just a suggestion, a mere request, an encouragement to testify? No. A subpoena is a writ issued by a government agency, in this case the Congress, to compel testimony or production of evidence. When you get a subpoena, Madam Speaker, the law requires you to comply. If you think there may be some valid reason that excuses you from telling the truth under oath, then you have to come in and make your case to the committee. Steve Bannon is the only person who has outright refused to engage with the committee. He thinks that if he simply obstructs Congress by not showing up he will escape the consequences. But as Theodore Roosevelt said, ``No man is above the law and no man is below the law.'' If you get a subpoena, you cannot hide behind vague and immaterial claims of privilege. The cases make it clear--Judicial Watch, Nixon v. GSA, and the McGahn case--executive privilege is limited to immediate White House advisers on government policy. Bannon is a private citizen. His extravagant claims can't shield his conversations and plotting with other private citizens. His status, according to the cases, doesn't get executive privilege protection. He has no absolute immunity. Madam Speaker, what would happen if an American received a subpoena from Congress or a court? Do you think they could get away with just saying: Go fly a kite? They would be held accountable. And so should Mr. Bannon be held to account for defying the law regarding this subpoena. Madam Speaker, to defend the rule of law, we must vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amendment that would allow a small number of special immigrant visas to the world's top scientists and technical experts selected by the Secretary of Defense. I trust the Secretary of Defense looking out after the Nation's security interests, and it is important that our security depends on having access to the top scientists in the world who are committed to the success of our country. We need to take bold action to make sure that we educate and train our American people to be the best scientists they can be. But that doesn't mean that every smart person who loves America was born in America. In fact, some of the most patriotic people I have ever met were immigrants who came here and became Americans by choice. It is absolutely clear that nations that attract and retain highly- skilled innovators gain a competitive advantage, and we can help do that for America through this very thoughtful plan. For us, the promise of the American Dream remains a powerful draw for the world's innovators. This amendment would move us in the right direction and help ensure that America, and not our competitors, benefits from the world's best minds. I want to thank Mr. Langevin for this smart amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to thank Kurt Hyde for his many years of dedicated service to the Library on the occasion of his retirement. Mr. Hyde was invaluable in setting the Library on a path of modernization and performance-driven strategy. Mr. Hyde has had a long and illustrious career in the public, nonprofit and private sectors, in positions devoted to the public interest. Prior to serving as the Library's Inspector General, he was the deputy inspector general for audit and evaluations at the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, a sophisticated, white collar law enforcement agency established to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the $700 billion program. Similarly, he served as the deputy assistant inspector general for the Resolution Trust Corporation during the savings and loan financial crisis in the 1990s. Other government service included work at the Government Accountability Office and as a senior executive at the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General. In the private sector, Mr. Hyde was a partner in the government services practice at big 5 accounting and consulting firm. He also consulted to a non-profit whose mission was to develop transformational leaders for primary and secondary schools. Although we will miss Mr. Hyde's hard work and dedication to the Library, we wish him well as he embarks upon his well-deserved retirement. Please join me in thanking Mr. Hyde for his years of outstanding service.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Bernard A. ``Bud'' Barton, Jr. on his retirement from the Library of Congress and to thank him for nearly three decades of dedicated public service. Mr. Barton has spent his career at the intersection of knowledge and technology. While serving as the deputy chief information officer for the North Carolina National Guard. Mr. Barton designed the agency's disaster recovery and continuity of operations capabilities, ensuring the Guard lived up to its ``Always Ready'' motto. As chief information officer for the Defense Technical Information Center, Mr. Barton ensured that the Department of Defense's largest library had the IT infrastructure necessary to fuse science and technology data and reliably deliver the knowledge needed to develop the next generation of technologies to support our Warfighters and help assure national security. In 2015, Mr. Barton took on what Fortune Magazine labeled as possibly the hardest job in tech, serving as the Chief Information Officer for the Library of Congress. Mr. Barton has ably guided the nation's oldest federal cultural institution through a complete technological overhaul. Mr. Barton oversaw the centralization of Library technology activities; fostered the creation of an agency-wide digital strategy; and marshalled efforts to optimize and modernize the Library's IT infrastructure and critical IT business systems. Under his leadership, the Library completed a three-year data center transformation, embracing the best of traditional IT services and the Cloud to ensure a stable, flexible, scalable foundation for the future. He also completely revamped IT security, and successfully addressed more than 100 major technology recommendations identified by Congress and the GAO. Through it all, Mr. Barton has been a transparent, proactive, and enthusiastic partner to Members of Congress, our staff and our constituents. The impact of these changes cannot be overstated. As the world's largest library and home of both the Congressional Research Service and the U.S. Copyright Office, the Library of Congress stands as a beacon of knowledge and a source of creativity. Mr. Barton leaves the Library a stronger, more digitally enabled institution that is better prepared than ever to serve the needs of Congress, researchers, and all Americans. Please join me in wishing Mr. Barton a well-deserved retirement after a lifetime of faithful public service.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great friend of the U.S. Government Publishing Office and of the U.S. Congress itself, former Public Printer William J. ``Bill'' Boarman, who passed away on August 22, 2021. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Bill served as the 26th Public Printer of the United States, the former title for the head of the U.S. Government Printing Office, as it was then known. As Rep. Steny Hoyer has said, Bill's service set a new standard of achievement for his successors to emulate. Bill's arrival at GPO found the agency confronting worrisome fiscal and technology challenges. He moved quickly to cut agency spending and aggressively collected funds owed to GPO throughout the government. In committee hearings and visits with Members of Congress, Bill provided persuasive testimony on the value of the services that GPO performs while at the same time ordering the first-ever survey of Congress's printing requirements, resulting in the largest single-year reduction in the number of printed Congressional Record copies delivered to Congress since GPO began an online version in 1994. Bill made customer service GPO's primary strategic goal, a direction that earned the agency applause throughout the government. He ordered the development and release of GPO's first mobile web application. He devised and won congressional approval for a new investment and spending plan that put GPO on the path it is continuing to follow today. As a former GPO compositor, his return to the agency restored confidence and bolstered employee morale. While heralding technology change at GPO he appeared in ``Linotype: The Film,'' an independent production extolling the virtues of that long gone machine. Under his watch GPO observed its 150th anniversary, opening an exhibit of its history to the public and issuing an official history with a foreword by Bill. In addition to leaving the agency better than he found it, Bill made GPO history by appointing Ms. Davita Vance-Cooks as deputy public printer, the first woman ever to hold that post, and in 2013 the Senate confirmed her appointment to become the first woman and the first African American ever to head the agency. The road to Bill's success at the GPO was paved from the beginning of his career. Bill spent his life in printing, frequently claiming that he had ``ink in my veins,'' and in his work supporting the rights and welfare of printers nationwide. Following high school in Hyattsville, MD, he took a four-year apprenticeship with the International Typographical Union (ITU) and became a journeyman printer at McArdle Printing in Washington, D.C. In 1974, Bill began his career as a proofreader at the GPO and eventually moved up to linotype operator. He quickly became a shop steward and at age 30 was elected president of the Columbia Typographical Union, Local 101, his home local and a craft union that traces its beginning to before the Civil War. Bill served on the ITU executive board in 1987 where he was a key player in that organization's merger with the Communication Workers of America. He was elected to head the ITU as it moved to merger, and he subsequently became head of the CWA's Printing Sector. As the chief executive of the newly-merged organization, Bill oversaw bargaining and organizing in the printing industry. He also served as chair of the $1 billion CWA/ITU Negotiated Pension Plan and the $125 million counterpart serving Canadian printers. His experience with pension investing, funding, and administration led to his appointment to a number of high-level pension policy councils. Over the span of his career, Bill was a fierce advocate for workers' rights. He was frequently in attendance at labor rallies across the country, marching with Cesar Chavez in San Diego in 1990 and supporting Richard Trumka at the Detroit News Building during its newspaper strike in 1996. His advocacy for workers was especially focused on GPO. For more than 40 years Bill advocated strongly and tirelessly for the agency, defending its essential role and the role played by its employees in supporting Congress and the Federal Government. His advice and counsel were sought and welcomed by Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, as well as Presidents. After his retirement from GPO in 2012, Bill remained committed to public service. He was appointed by Maryland's governor to serve on both the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities and the Anne Arundel Board of Elections. He was an avid boater who loved his home port on the Severn River and enjoyed the beauty of the Chesapeake Bay. He had a keen understanding of American history and thrived on lively political discussions. He loved sports, especially University of Maryland basketball and the Washington Football Team. In Bill Boarman, American printers nationwide had a true friend; the Congress, an honorable and skillful servant; GPO, a champion whose impact continues to be felt. I ask my fellow Members of the House to join me in extending our deepest condolences to Bill's family and friends, as well as the thanks of a grateful nation for his dedicated service.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I support the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Congress first passed the Voting Rights Act while Martin Luther King, Jr. led for civil rights and John Lewis stood by his side. The law made a difference, defeating racial discrimination in voting. But the Court, in the Shelby and Brnovich cases, destroyed important parts of the law. This bill fixes that. With an updated coverage formula, practice-based preclearance, and rational standards to challenge racial discrimination, this bill is essential. Representatives Butterfield and Fudge both chaired the Subcommittee on Elections, whose hearings established the factual bases for this bill. All the members of the Subcommittee on Elections worked hard holding hearings around America. I thank them, and I thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for their work. As we vote to restore the Voting Rights Act, to protect the rights of Americans from being denied the right to vote because of their race, we should remember, honor, and thank those who came before us, and especially our late colleague, John Lewis. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. As has been mentioned, it makes key changes in the Afghan Allies Protection Act to ensure that the Special Immigrant Visa program, which is part of current law, works as Congress intended to protect the lives of Afghan nationals who served honorably alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan. For the past several years, many of us have expressed grave concerns about the challenges our allies face in navigating the Special Immigrant Visa process. It currently takes an average of 3 years to complete the process, which includes numerous forms, applications, detailed documentary requirements, and lengthy criminal background and national security checks. This bill makes important changes to streamline the application without compromising the national security interests or the integrity of the program. Now, I think back to when we voted after 9/11, and I don't think any of us--and I will speak for myself--believed that we were starting a 20-year war, the longest war in America's history. During that war, Afghans stepped forward to serve beside our brave military. I am proud that veterans in this Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have stepped forward to work together to make sure that this bill moves forward so that we can honor our commitment. Mr. Speaker, we are finally leaving Afghanistan after 20 years, our longest war. We have a moral obligation to ensure that our allies can safely and more quickly be removed from harm, so we need to stand by these brave men and women and pass this bill. It is in the national interest. If we can't keep our promises to our allies, who is going to believe us in the future? Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Crow from Colorado, in particular, for leading on this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of our former colleague Jerry Lewis. My colleagues here have spoken to the mark he left on the House of Representatives. I'd like to take a moment speak to his legacy in the California delegation, where he was the longest serving Republican in our state's history. Whether it was as my counterpart as Chair of the California Republican Congressional Delegation, during his tenure as Republican Conference Chair, or his time as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Jerry was always willing to work with his California colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the needs of our state. If Jerry had anything to say about it, California was getting its fair share. During his time in Sacramento he helped establish the South Coast Air Quality Management District. He understood the need to deal with the horrific smog that was plaguing much of Southern California, and particularly the Inland Empire. George Miller once pointed out that Jerry and he were on opposing sides of legislation to create the Mojave Desert National Park, but that once the park was created, Jerry immediately turned around and worked with the delegation to ensure that the public had access and that there would be improvements to the park. That's the kind of legislator he was--instead of being consumed by what divides us, Jerry like to move to the next problem to solve. We've missed his presence in the House over the last decade. Our thoughts are with his wife Arlene and his children and grandchildren.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and thank the immediate and extended staff of the Office of Employee Assistance (OEA) at the United States House of Representatives for their tireless service to the House, the United States Capitol Police, and Congressional Budget Office following the violent attack on our Capitol on January 6, 2021. Through exemplary dedication, passion, and commitment to their profession, the team has developed the OEA into a preeminent employee assistance program over three decades, delivering comprehensive confidential services covering an array of personal and work-related issues to positively impact employee performance, productivity, and well-being. The team's commitment and care has offered comfort and coping tools to those experiencing profound grief and distress after the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. These services included one-to-one crisis consultation, confidential counseling, debriefings on trauma and resilience, discussion group facilitation, and the development and dissemination of self-help material containing practical strategies to promote recovery. Additionally, the OEA promptly secured and coordinated additional counseling assets for their appointment-based services as well as for the ongoing, around-the-clock crisis support efforts that would remain available to Capitol Police personnel in the weeks and months that followed. Through in-person, telephonic, and video meetings and seminars, the OEA interacted with thousands of employees and family members in the first half of 2021 alone, far surpassing past utilization trends. Employee engagement in all their services has been unprecedented--as have been the needs--yet the staff of the OEA has never flinched. The dedicated team provided impactful work not only through an extraordinary volume of interactions with individuals, but through regular training and briefing facilitation across the House, on-call responses after-hours, and ongoing efforts to promote the services throughout the House and the Capitol Police communities. All the while, the team maintained the resolve and perspective to effectively help others while processing their own attack-and-pandemic-related concerns as employees of this institution. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to acknowledge the entire Office of Employee Assistance and Well-Being teams who served throughout this tremendous support effort: Tiara Anderson, Breanna Becker, Briana Cragwell, Georgeanna Goldstein, Margot Hawkins-Green, Rhonda Kaalund, Malia Klee, Liz McBride, Jon Murphy, Emily Swartz, Paul Tewksbury, and Brian Weiss. Also worthy of our thanks are the contracted counseling partners. These special groups of professionals should all be commended for their commitment, dedication, and professionalism during a time of great need. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct honor to recognize and thank the Office of Employee Assistance for their extraordinary and unwavering service to this institution.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip. We are so lucky to have as our whip someone who started his public service as a fighter for civil rights. Like our colleague, the late John Lewis, our whip put his life on the line for civil rights and for voting rights.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 504, I call up the bill (H.R. 3005) to direct the Joint Committee on the Library to replace the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol with a bust of Thurgood Marshall to be obtained by the Joint Committee on the Library and to remove certain statues from areas of the United States Capitol which are accessible to the public, to remove all statues of individuals who voluntarily served the Confederate States of America from display in the United States Capitol, and for other purposes.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It directs the Joint Committee on the Library to replace the bust of Chief Justice Roger Taney in the Old Supreme Court Chamber with a bust of Justice Thurgood Marshall. It also directs the removal of statues and busts of individuals who served the Confederacy, and other white supremacists. The United States Capitol is a beacon of democracy, freedom, and equality, visited by millions of people each year before COVID hit, and soon we hope to be visited by millions of people again. What and who we choose to honor in this building must represent our values. Chief Justice Taney, who, in the Dred Scott decision, declared that African Americans could never be citizens of the United States and had no constitutional rights, does not meet this standard; and neither do the white supremacists and Confederates we continue to honor with statues today. Justice Taney's decision continued and permitted the expansion of slavery. Those who founded, served, and fought for the Confederacy were willing to spill American blood in defense of it. In his infamous Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that slavery and white supremacy were the cornerstone of the Confederacy. There is no shortage of American figures like Justice Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the Supreme Court, more deserving of the honor of being displayed in our Capitol. There are some who argue that this action is an attempt to erase and forget our history. Nothing could be further from the truth. We must never forget our Nation's shameful periods of slavery, segregation, and racism. This is, instead, about who we choose to honor, who we choose to literally put on the pedestal and display as emblematic of our values. We are just months removed from January 6, when a mob of insurrectionists looking to violently overturn a Presidential election stormed this very building. During that awful attack, the same Confederate flag carried into battle against the United States in the 19th century was again carried into battle against the United States and into this very Capitol. It is long past time to remove from a place of honor in our Nation's Capitol the statues and busts of those who favored war against the United States in support of the so-called government founded on a cornerstone of racism and white supremacy. Outside the Old Supreme Court Chamber, before you get to the Taney bust, you pass another sculpture, which depicts the figures of History and Justice. Today, we can demonstrate to the Nation and the world that we have learned from our history and we continue to pursue justice. Put another way, we can follow the advice of the great American poet and civil rights activist Maya Angelou. This is what she said: ``Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.'' Let us now show ourselves and the world that we are who we claim to be. Let us do better. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3005, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from North Carolina, I would like to correct the record. The Joint Committee on the Library organized last Wednesday. Until last Wednesday, the Joint Committee was chaired by Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a Republican Senator, and I have now been chair for 6 days and hope to act promptly on the North Carolina matter. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), the distinguished chair of the Election Subcommittee in the House Administration Committee.

Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, before yielding, I just want to note, for purposes of clarifying the historical record, that the Republicans of the 19th century and the early 20th century bear almost no resemblance to the Republican Party of today. Similarly, the Democratic Party bears no resemblance to the Democratic Party of the 19th and early 20th centuries. They are the same parties in name only. In the 19th century, the Republicans were generally the party of the northerners, and the Democrats were the party of the South, and that has switched. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.