Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 727. The rule provides for consideration of the resolution accompanying House Report 117-152 under a closed rule if the report is called up by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and an opponent. Mr. Speaker, today, we face a fundamental choice: Whether we are going to get to the truth about the violent January 6 attack, the worst assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812 and the worst domestic assault on American democracy since the Civil War, or whether we are going to allow lawful subpoenas to be ignored and the investigation being conducted by the select committee to be obstructed to puff up the ego of the former President, who has launched another frivolous lawsuit, this time against the select committee. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I still remember January 6 like it was yesterday. I was standing right where you are now, Mr. Speaker. Our democracy was in peril; the lives of Members of Congress, our staffs, and all the workers here were endangered. And Capitol Police officers were beaten or worse. Getting to the truth of what happened or placating the ego of a former President, that shouldn't be a tough call. In any ordinary time, it wouldn't be. This measure would probably have passed on suspension. Because as a Member of Congress, we have fewer more important and solemn duties than what is at the heart of the measure before us today, and that is protecting our democracy and preventing future attempts to overturn the results of an election. This is about country, not about party. Now, many witnesses are already doing their patriotic duty and cooperating voluntarily with the select committee. In fact, 10 of the 11 witnesses required to produce records to the select committee by the required deadline are engaging with the committee. Only one person, Mr. Speaker, is refusing. One. Stephen K. Bannon. Instead of doing the right thing, the legal thing, the patriotic thing, Mr. Bannon is hiding behind the former President's false claims of executive privilege to try to run out the clock on this investigation. Now, maybe he has something to hide. I don't know. But the law isn't on his side. It is not on Donald Trump's side either. Executive privilege is not absolute, and President Biden has declined to invoke that privilege. There is a long history of the White House making accommodations to investigative requests from Congress. That is especially true when the public interest outweighs other interests, as it does here. But apparently facts and the law don't matter to some. Apparently, Steve Bannon thinks he is above the law. Maybe it is because he was pardoned by the former occupant of the White House. But ultimately, in the United States of America, no one should be above the law. That shouldn't be a controversial idea. But we live in an age where apparently some put fidelity to Donald Trump over fidelity to the Constitution. And I find that disgusting. I get it. The former President is in Mar-a-Lago somewhere seething about our efforts to get to the truth about January 6. But is he so feared, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican colleagues are going to keep denying what happened that day? And keep trying to sweep it under the rug as if it never happened? Oh, it was no big deal. This is our democracy that we are talking about here. This is about the oath we took and the freedoms we cherish, freedoms that Americans have fought and died for, Mr. Speaker. And some on the other side, are they really willing to throw away all of that to placate the whims of one man? Really? This has to stop. The legal scholar James Landis once said: ``To deny Congress power to acquaint itself with facts is equivalent to requiring it to prescribe remedies in darkness.'' We need to see the facts in the cold light of day and follow them wherever they lead. That means not only holding those who attack this building itself accountable, as the legal system is currently doing, it also means holding people accountable when they attack what this building stands for: Democracy and rule of law. We will not tolerate being left in the dark, and certainly not when something so fundamental is at stake. Now, this doesn't have to be a partisan fight. And just yesterday in the Committee on Rules, we debated the underlying measure at length. And, yes, we heard from the usual Members who rushed to the former President's defense, who deflected and wanted to talk about anything other than the events of January 6. But we also saw something more remarkable. Chairman Thompson, a Democrat, sat side-by-side with Vice Chair Cheney, a Republican, two people who probably have never voted for the same Presidential candidates in their lives; two people who disagree on virtually every issue. But they agreed on this: On defending the Constitution and rule of law. Let's follow their example. Mr. Speaker, I sat across the dais from Congresswoman Cheney for years on the Committee on Rules when the Republicans were in charge. We were polar opposites. But yesterday, I couldn't have agreed with her more, not as a Democrat but as an American. Now I don't give a damn if you are a Democrat or a Republican, and I don't care if you like Donald Trump or not. Matters like this are about something more than petty partisanship. So I urge my colleagues, let's put our country before our party. Let's put defending our democracy before defending Donald Trump. Let's support this rule and the underlying measure, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as public servants, as Members of Congress dedicated to preserving American democracy and the rule of law. That is what is at stake here and nothing less. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Minnesota said we wouldn't be in this position if we had done what the Republicans had asked us to do. We did. And I include in the Record the letter that the minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, sent to Speaker Pelosi requesting a number of items. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, February 22, 2021. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi: We are in agreement that the best path forward for bipartisan legislation is to create an impartial and bipartisan Commission. In keeping with the suggestions from the Co-Chairs of the 9/11 Commission, the legislation the House puts forward should mirror the precedents that fairly and successfully governed that Commission. Simply put, House Republicans are asking for no more and no less than what Congress came together and agreed upon in the past. Specifically, those precedents include: An equal 5-5 ratio in appointments by Democrats and Republicans Co-Equal Subpoena Power for the Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission No inclusion of findings or other predetermined conclusions which ultimately should be rendered by the Commission itself As the Co-Chairs of the Commission stated, a ``bipartisan independent investigation will earn credibility with the American public.'' I am confident that following their procedures and precedents can do just that, in a way that an overtly partisan commission will not be able to. Thank you and I look forward to hearing your response. Sincerely, Kevin McCarthy, House Republican Leader.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, those items include: an equal 5:5 ratio on a committee; coequal subpoena power; no inclusion of findings of other predetermined conclusions which ultimately should be rendered by the Commission itself. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Homeland Security agreed to every one of them--every single one of them. And what did the Republicans do? They said, Well, we didn't think you would agree to everything, but we still don't want the Commission. So they voted against it. And then they blocked it in the United States Senate. So don't talk to me about partisanship or bipartisanship when it was very clear early on that my friends on the other side had no intention of wanting to work with us to get to the truth, because they couldn't take yes for an answer. Mr. Speaker, let me also point out that today, President Trump issued a statement--he had to issue a statement because he can't tweet anymore because of mistruths and embrace of violence. Anyway, he issued a statement today. This is what he said: The statement says, ``The insurrection took place on November 3, election day. January 6 was the protest!'' Let me just say that one more time. Trump said today in a statement, ``The insurrection took place on November 3, election day. January 6 was a protest!'' And by the way, he didn't mention that it was a violent protest on January 6. Mr. Speaker, are any of my Republican colleagues, aside from Congresswoman Cheney and Representative Kinzinger, who have shown courage and patriotism, are any of them willing to come to the floor and say unequivocally that the election on November 3 was not an insurrection, as the former President has now said? It was a free and fair election held by one of the oldest democracies in the world. And that used to mean something to my Republican friends. Please, please. The former occupant of the White House is trying to tear this country apart. And unfortunately, too many on the other side are going along with him. Enough. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that someone on the other side would respond to former President Trump's statement today, which I find stunning and shocking, but apparently they don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about legislative purpose. When we get to the bill, I will let the committee members respond to that. I do want to say one thing again; that Speaker Pelosi was committed to a truly bipartisan commission, and we did a bipartisan commission--a truly bipartisan commission. My friends on the other side of the aisle tried to undercut it and get their friends over in the Senate to tank it. That is what happened. They basically destroyed what could have been a bipartisan commission that, quite frankly, was the way we all wanted to go. But then they said, well, she wouldn't let us put who we wanted on this current commission. Well, the minority leader suggested Mr. Jordan to be the lead Republican, and he very well may be a material witness in this investigation. You would put him on to oversee an investigation of, what, himself and others? Give me a break. What is going on here? At least be honest enough with the American people to say what is going on here; and that is, you don't want to get to the truth about what happened on January 6. You never did; notwithstanding the violence that occurred right here in this Chamber, in this sacred building. So, please, let's not get into this, Oh, we wanted to cooperate but somehow you wouldn't let us. We gave you everything you wanted, and you could not take yes for an answer. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to waste my time debating this information. What my friend is talking about is a false government takeover. What about the people who tried to take over our democracy on January 6? What about what happened here on January 6? Why is there no interest in getting to the truth? They come with this instead. Again, I am still waiting for somebody to respond to President Trump's statement that insurrection day took place on November 3. Do you really believe that? Is that what we have come to, that my friends on the other side would embrace such a shocking and such an offensive statement? We had a free and fair election, and this is what the former President--who my friends are all so afraid of--says. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind everybody that democracy doesn't defend itself; people have to defend democracy. It would be nice to see a little courage on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, not only will my Republican friends not condemn the President's outrageous and unacceptable and unconscionable statement today, but they won't even talk about what we are here for. That is what fear looks like, and it is really unbelievably sad. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman updating us on the bills that she has cosponsored and her opinions about the IRS, which have nothing to do with the underlying bill that we are debating here today. But it is stunning to me that neither she nor any of my friends on the other side of the aisle will respond to what the former occupant of the White House said today in a statement, that the insurrection took place on November 3; that our election, our lawful election in one of the oldest democracies in the world, was somehow an insurrection; and that January 6 was merely a protest. I am stunned by this. I challenge the next speaker, please, can you say that you disassociate yourself with this statement? Can you make it clear to the American people that you want no part of this? I get it. You endorsed this man. He campaigned for you. You are afraid of his base. You are afraid every time he says anything. But the bottom line is, this statement needs to be condemned, and the unwillingness of anybody on the other side to condemn this statement is unconscionable. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, when the gentlewoman from Minnesota yielded the gentleman from Illinois an additional minute, I was kind of hopeful that maybe he would be the one to say that he disassociates himself from the statement of Donald Trump today in which he said that the insurrection took place on November 3, election day. I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to him if he wants to say that this was a statement that is not only unconscionable but that every American should condemn. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, oh, my God, can somebody, please--I beg of you on the other side--can somebody, please, disassociate yourself or condemn the statement by the former President who said today that the insurrection took place on November 3? All my colleagues were elected on November 3 as well. If you believe that election day was an insurrection, then your election results are illegitimate. Can somebody, please, for the sake of our democracy, say that what was said by the former President is wrong? Please. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if this microphone is working, because I am not sure my colleagues can hear me when I have asked them over and over again, can you please disassociate yourself from the former President's statement today? It is important. It is on topic. By the way, what the gentleman just talked about has nothing to do with what we are talking about today. It is amazing that nobody wants to talk about what is on the floor today. But my constituents, when they talk to me, you know what they are fearful about? They are fearful about losing our democracy in their lifetime. And the inability or the unwillingness of my friends on the other side to be able to disassociate themselves with a statement by the former President, which today he said the election on November 3 was somehow the insurrection. It is stunning to me. He is tearing this country apart, and the silence and the indifference on the other side is aiding him in his quest to do that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I can't adequately express the outrage I feel about what happened in this institution on January 6. It was not only an attack on this building; it was an attack on our democracy. I will tell you, if we don't have our democracy intact, you are not going to fix the supply chain issues or the energy issues or any other issues. Our democracy is in peril. It was attacked on January 6. Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of the Rules Committee, so I understand what the rules of the House are, so I cannot say what I really feel about what went on in this Chamber today with this debate. I am disgusted, to be quite honest with you. We are trying to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6, and many on the other side have done everything they could to frustrate that effort. Now, we have somebody who doesn't want to comply with a subpoena, and we are saying we are going to put some force behind that. We need to be able to do our oversight. We need to get to the truth, and my friends are trying to frustrate that. Then today, former President Trump issues a statement saying insurrection day took place on November 3. That was election day, when we were all elected. That is what he thought? That is what he thinks was an insurrection? And January 6 was just a protest. We were all here that day. We saw the violence. People lost their lives that day. People were wounded that day. People were traumatized by that day. Again, it was not just an attack on this building and the people who work here; it was an attack on our democracy. And my friends on the other side of the aisle can't even muster the courage to say that the former President was wrong in his statement. That is what fear looks like. That is what fear of Donald Trump looks like. It is so sad that a once great party has come to this. I said it earlier. Members come and go. I know people are all worried about the latest polls and where our base is and what political implications will come from this or that. But at the end of the day, you ought to be worried about your legacy, about what your children and grandchildren think. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just returned from leading a fact- finding delegation to Colombia from October 3 to 8. I have traveled to Colombia a dozen times since 2001. This time, I traveled to Cali, a city still reeling from intense protests this past spring and the security forces' excessive response. It was my second visit to Cali and my third to this specific region. I met with the mayor of Cali, the Catholic archbishop, youth who had protested, families whose children were killed during the protests, local journalists, and human rights defenders. I then traveled an hour south to the town of Santander de Quilichao in northern Cauca. The Department of Cauca leads Colombia in killings of social leaders and former combatants. There, I met with the U.N. Verification Mission team monitoring implementation of the peace accord and had a lengthy talk with the town's mayor. I spent the most time with Afro-Colombian, indigenous, campesino, women's, and LGBTQ organizations. The next day, I visited the San Juan community in Sumapaz, a formerly guerrila-controlled region in the Andes paramo, 3 hours south of Bogota. I traveled with representatives of Bogota's mayor, whose jurisdiction includes Sumapaz. I saw water projects being carried out by campesinos, indigenous, and former combatants. I attended a town meeting where everyone was free to have their say. In Bogota, I met with our embassy and President Duque, leaders of the Colombian police, the U.N. and the OAS, the International Committee of the Red Cross, U.S. and Colombian security analysts, Colombian members of Congress, human rights defenders, and journalists. I returned disturbed and worried, Mr. Speaker. I am deeply concerned about the state of human rights, peace, and democracy in Colombia. I will be listening closely to what U.S. officials say on these matters at the high-level bilateral dialogue this week in Bogota. The U.S. has spent over $8.2 billion in taxpayer money on military and security support for Colombia since 2000. Yet, large parts of Colombia aren't under government control or have been abandoned by the state. Human rights defenders and local leaders are targeted and killed. Journalists are threatened and subject to illegal surveillance. The drug trade is flourishing, and illegal armed groups grow in power. I am especially concerned by the frustration and fears I heard from organizations that have been fighting for peace for decades but today feel that things are going in a wrong and very dangerous direction. It is painful to remember the hope they felt during my last visit in 2017, as they made plans inspired by the peace accord and its promise of progress. For them, Colombia has taken a giant step backward, much greater than understood from Washington before my trip. Then there were protests this spring where we saw the Colombian police react violently to legitimate demands for education, health, food, and jobs. Demonstrators were shot with live ammunition by a police force that receives U.S. aid. ESMAD, the riot police, not a recipient of direct U.S. grant assistance, because of its terrible human rights record, used crowd- control equipment to wound, maim, and kill demonstrators. Some of this equipment was made in the U.S.A. and likely provided through commercial sales, which I believe should immediately stop. Mr. Speaker, what do you say to a woman who asks whether she is still a mother because her only child was killed in the protests? How do you comfort a father whose son served honorably with the Colombian military only to die at the hands of the Colombian police? I am also deeply concerned about the implementation of the 2016 peace accord. The agreement provides a roadmap to address longstanding problems in Colombia, including those that provoked the protests. But it is a comprehensive agreement that must be carried out holistically, not a few parts here and there, while ignoring, undermining, or slow-walking the rest. But there is reason for hope. In Sumapaz, I saw firsthand what a committed local government and an organized community can accomplish to establish peace, security, and development that benefits everyone, not just a privileged few. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of so many of our programs and projects in Colombia. I treasure the friendship between the United States and Colombia. As a friend and ally, it is critical that the U.S. speak frankly and forcefully about setbacks to peace, the need for serious police reform, and the dangerous human rights situation. If we care about the people of Colombia and their human rights, Congress has a responsibility to take a deep look at the situation inside Colombia and reevaluate the priorities of our aid. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from numerous nongovernmental organizations to Secretary of State Antony Blinken concerning the upcoming high-level bilateral dialogue. October 18, 2021. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, The State Department, Washington, DC. Dear Secretary Blinken: As you travel to Colombia for the high-level bilateral dialogue, we urge you to use this opportunity to press the Colombian government for progress on flagging peace accord implementation and for actions on critical human rights issues, including improving the dire situation of human rights defenders, advancing the rights of Afro-Colombian and indigenous people, addressing the needs of poor and landless farmers, and confronting the serious problems of police brutality and racial injustice. As organizations that have followed events in Colombia for many years, many of us with programs and close partners in the country, we are gravely disappointed that to date the Biden Administration has not placed sufficient emphasis on these issues and hope that your visit will mark a change. We urge you to avoid public statements that praise the U.S.- Colombian partnership while skirting over the deeply disturbing patterns of human rights violations that should be a major focus of U.S. concern and diplomacy. Police brutality. In response to massive, largely peaceful demonstrations against a regressive tax initiative, unemployment, and social exclusion, Colombian security forces, particularly the national police and the ESMAD riot squad, killed and injured protesters, mainly teenagers and young adults. Eighty-seven civilians were killed in the course of the protests according to the Defender la Libertad human rights campaign. Police shot live ammunition and projectiles into crowds, including in one case into a group of families and neighbors assembled for a candlelight vigil for a young man killed the day before, causing major injuries, loss of eyesight, and death. Police and ESMAD targeted, along with protesters, human rights defenders, journalists, and medical brigade members who provided first aid to protesters and police. Police sexually abused young women protesters and threatened women first aid responders with rape. Family members of victims of police brutality and human rights defenders seeking justice for police abuses are stigmatized and their lives threatened. Following these tragic events, rather than taking significant action to advance dialogue, police reform, and prosecutions of abusive security forces, the Colombian government has presented only superficial police reforms and appears focused on investigating and prosecuting protesters and those who helped them. Few cases of security force abuses during the 2021 protests are moving forward in civilian courts; 13 homicide cases involving security forces have been reported as inappropriately in the military justice system, which rarely results in justice. Peace accord implementation and situation of human rights defenders. The historic 2016 peace accords, a major legacy of the Obama-Biden Administration due to its support for negotiations, are at risk due to weak implementation. As of September 2021, 292 FARC ex-combatants have been killed since laying down their arms. Moreover Colombia remains one of the most dangerous countries on earth to be a human rights defender; 158 human rights defenders were killed so far this year in 2021, according to the United Nations. For the second year in a row, Colombia leads the world in murders of environmental and land rights defenders, according to Global Witness. Colombia's community leaders are in danger precisely because they are building peace on the ground, while the government has failed to implement its peace accord commitments, including dismantling paramilitary networks, protecting communities, and bringing effective and rights-respecting state presence into conflict zones. Peace accord consolidation is especially weak in terms of implementing the Ethnic Chapter and gender provisions; protection of human rights defenders, social leaders, and communities; dismantling paramilitary networks; protection of ex- combatants; provision of adequate programs for farmers committed to coca eradication, and implementation of the comprehensive rural reform, including provision of land to displaced persons, poor farmers, and indigenous and Afro- Colombian people. While U.S. aid to advance peace accord implementation is important and well-targeted, the failure to advance peace accord implementation is not primarily a question of resources, but of political will. As you dialogue with the Colombian government, we ask you to publicly as well as privately: Insist, as a condition of any future U.S. security assistance, that the Colombian government implement serious police reform, including transferring the police from the Defense Ministry to a civilian agency, ensuring all human rights abuses by police are tried in civilian courts, dismantling the ESMAD, revising use-of-force-protocols, and establishing external oversight and controls over the police. Limiting reforms to increasing human rights courses and revising internal disciplinary procedures is not an adequate response. The U.S. government should also encourage progress on prosecuting cases in civilian courts against security force members involved in abuses in the context of the protests, raise concerns regarding specious or excessive prosecutions of protesters, and urge the Colombian government to respect the right to protest. Urge the Colombian government to recommit to fully implementing the peace accords. It is essential to maintain U.S. diplomatic and financial support for implementing the accords as the central framework for U.S. policy towards Colombia. Please also express publicly support for the work of the tripartite transitional justice system, namely the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP), the Truth Commission, and the Search Unit for the Disappeared. Express publicly your concerns about the grave dangers faced by Colombian human rights defenders and social leaders and emphasize the importance of their role in building peace and defending the rule of law. U.S.-Colombia actions to address climate change should also include protection of the rights and lives of endangered environmental activists, who are on the frontlines of efforts to protect the planet. Urge the Colombian government to promptly and regularly convene the National Commission on Security Guarantees established by the peace accords, which should include participation by civil society, government, and ex- combatants, to develop and implement a plan for dismantling paramilitary and other illegal armed networks and for providing security to human rights defenders, communities, and ex-combatants. This long-delayed commitment, central to bring rights-respecting security to conflict zones and protecting human rights defenders, must advance. Urge the Colombian government to uphold the rights of Afro- Colombian, indigenous, and Palenquero people. Ask the Colombian government to prioritize implementing the peace agreement's Ethnic Chapter. The government should convene the Special High-Level Mechanism with Ethnic Peoples (IANPE), mandated by the peace accords, to discuss the best methods to implement the Ethnic Chapter and should work with Afro- Colombian and indigenous authorities and civil rights groups to guarantee its consolidation at the local and regional level. In addition, urge the Colombian government to implement the humanitarian accords with communities that serve to protect such communities, ensure assistance and protection to internally displaced persons, and address racial discrimination including the Humanitarian Accord Now in Choco. We would greatly welcome the revitalization of the U.S.-Colombian Racial Action Plan (CAPREE) and the development of a joint U.S.-Colombian strategy with specific steps to address structural racism. Urge the Colombian government to prioritize full and effective implementation of provisions to achieve ``a genuine structural transformation of the countryside'' as agreed under the Comprehensive Rural Reform chapter of the peace accords. This is critical to address the exclusion and inequality in rural areas, particularly in access to land, which is a root cause as well as a consequence of conflict in Colombia. Only limited progress has been made in implementing provisions to improve access to land, due in part to administrative delays and inadequate allocation of resources, and to a focus on formalizing tenure rather than redistributing land. Peace is unlikely to be sustainable as long as many poor, landless, marginalized, and displaced rural families see no improvement in their lives and livelihoods, which depend on access to land. Urge the Colombian government to address the failure to uphold its commitments outlined in the Labor Action Plan (LAP) and ensure that labor rights are fully applied and protected in Colombia. As detailed in the U.S. Department of Labor's recently released Second Periodic Review of Progress of the Colombia Labor Rights Complaint Submission dated October 7, 2021, a number of issues and benchmarks of the 2017 Submission Report recommendations have not been satisfactorily addressed and improved upon by the Colombian government. As the lack of labor rights enforcement and protection are an underlying factor in economic inequality and civic unrest, advancement on labor rights issues is critical and should be strongly emphasized by the U.S. government with Colombia. Insist on progress on reforms of Colombian military and intelligence services, including to end persistent patterns of surveillance over human rights defenders and other civil society leaders, journalists, and judicial personnel. While members of the military who committed gross human rights violations can receive transitional justice benefits by collaborating with the JEP and providing the truth about their crimes, the Colombian government must still be urged to provide accountability for the more than 6,000 extra-judicial executions by members of the Colombian armed forces, largely of poor young men executed and dressed up in guerrilla uniforms to be claimed as enemy dead. The United States should also uphold the peace accords directly through its own policy choices. First, the United States should support counternarcotics policy that abides by the peace accords' drug policy chapter. Such support must focus on working with small farmer communities to eradicate and replace coca, providing sufficient support for such farmers and communities to thrive, and must refrain from employing harsh and ineffective tactics such as aerial spraying. Restarting spraying will be seen as undermining the accords and will drive away farmers from cooperating. The peace accords emphasize dismantling drug trafficking and money laundering networks, which are U.S. priorities. Second, the United States should remove the Comunes Party from the terrorist list. It is counterproductive to maintain on this list ex-combatants who have shown their commitment to peace for the last five years. It demonstrates an ambivalence towards accords the United States helped to forge and hampers the ability of the United States and partners to provide support for reintegration and even for broader community development programs in areas with ex-combatants' presence. It is in the interests of both Colombia and the United States that peace be consolidated, police and military become more rights respecting, discrimination and violence against Afro-Colombian and indigenous peoples end, and human rights defenders be able to operate without fear for their lives. Only by challenging the Colombian government to address these serious underlying problems in Colombia can the United States contribute to this more hopeful future. Sincerely, Amazon Watch; American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); Chicago Religious Leadership Network on Latin America; Colombia Human Rights Committee; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces; Global Exchange; Global Ministries of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and United Church of Christ; Healing Bridges. Institute for Policy Studies, Drug Policy Project; International Institute on Race, Equality and Human Rights; Latin America Working Group; Missionary Oblates; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; Oxfam; United Church of Christ, Justice and Local Church Ministries; Washington Office on Latin America; Witness for Peace Solidarity Collective.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just state for the record that the House rules do not ban the use of any of the words that the gentleman is referring to. It is another one of these rightwing conspiracies. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to save my breath, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 716 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 716, for four measures. First, it provides for consideration of H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Scott, provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, makes in order eight amendments, provides en bloc authority, and provides one motion to recommit. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3110, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, under a structured rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Scott, provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, makes in order two amendments, and provides one motion to recommit. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3992, the Protecting Older Job Applicants Act, under a structured rule. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, makes in order two amendments, and provides one motion to recommit. Additionally, the rule provides that the House hereby concurs in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 1301, an increase of the public debt limit. Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on previously considered suspension bills through October 22, 2021, and provides recess instructions, suspension authority, and same day authority through November 18, 2021. Mr. Speaker, Republican Teddy Roosevelt once said: ``The government is us; we are the government, you and I.'' He knew that government is at its best when it brings all of us together while also working for every single one of us. That means a system that allows every American the chance to put a roof over their head, food on their table, and a job that allows them to put some money in the bank, and where education and healthcare are affordable and not a luxury for the precious wealthy few. Unfortunately, as a deadline loomed, those discussions have had to give way to a debate about whether our Nation will pay its debts. Rather than coming together to get this done, some on the other side advocated an approach that would stop government in its tracks and open the door on default for the first time in our history. We all know what that would mean. It would send our economy off a cliff and make the cost of virtually everything skyrocket, all at a time when we should be helping families recover from the economic shock of the COVID pandemic. Last week our Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin, said that defaulting our debt would risk the benefits of more than 2 million military retirees and roughly 400,000 survivors. Mark Zandi is chief economist at Moody's Analytics and previously worked for Republican Senator John McCain. He recently said that defaulting ``would be financial Armageddon.'' That is what has been at stake here, Mr. Speaker, financial Armageddon. The debt ceiling has been raised or suspended roughly 80 times in our Nation's history, often in a bipartisan way. And I am grateful that, after much debate, we are finally doing the right thing again here today. I took to the House floor two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, and stressed the importance of preventing default. I spoke about how I voted to raise the debt ceiling when I was in the majority and in the minority, when there was a Democrat in the White House and when there was a Republican in the White House, and I asked Republicans to do one thing: If they weren't going to help us raise the debt ceiling, I asked them to get out of the way so that Democrats could prevent default on our own. Now, I want to thank the minority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, for taking that advice. He crafted the initial framework of a deal that will temporarily increase our debt limit into early December. And after voting with just 10 other Republicans to allow debate on that compromise, he got so far out of the way that he couldn't even bring himself to vote for the deal that he pushed for. But the deal was made, and the compromise passed the Senate, and I am hopeful that we can send this bill to the President today and avert a totally self-made, unnecessary catastrophe. And let me say, for the record, the first time we saw a dramatic increase in our Nation's debt was under President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, who added $4 trillion to our Nation's debt; part of that was to pass tax cuts, again, primarily for those at the top. So please spare us the lectures on taxes and spending today. Let's just finally do the right thing. I want to thank all of those who will join with us today in making this possible. I pray that those who vote ``no'' will have their wisdom enlarged because what is before us is ultimately a stopgap. We will need to find a long-term solution in a matter of weeks; one that protects the full faith and credit of the United States, hopefully, without lurching from one short-term deadline to the next. That is one of the most basic tasks of Congress and, on behalf of our economy and the American people, we will have to get this done. We always have. And we cannot afford not to this time around. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me also urge passage of the three underlying bills that are also included in this rule; legislation that will extend protections for nursing mothers in the workplace, prevent discrimination of older Americans in the workforce, and combat intimate partner violence. They are important ways for us all to show our support for protecting our Nation's children, families, and workers. I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bills. Let's show that the words of Teddy Roosevelt haven't completely fallen on deaf ears. Let's show that America pays its bills; and let's show that we can keep making government work better for every single American. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.