Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 473, providing for consideration of H.R. 256, to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq resolution of 2002, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and one motion to recommit. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1187, the Corporate Governance Improvement and Investor Protection Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, makes in order 10 amendments, provides en bloc authority to the chair of the Committee on Financial Services, and provides for one motion to recommit. The rule provides that the provisions of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act shall not apply to H.J. Res. 46. The rule also deems passage of H. Res. 467. Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on June 14 or June 15. This authority lasts through June 17. Madam Speaker, there are two critically important measures contained in this rule. H.R. 1187 will build on landmark reforms like the Dodd-Frank Act and Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It will help hold corporations accountable, help investors make informed decisions, and build a more sustainable and equitable economic recovery. These improvements are badly needed, especially at a time when we are seeing a new era of sustainable investors. I want to discuss one bill in particular here today, Madam Speaker, a bill that was authored by the distinguished Chair, Congresswoman Barbara Lee from California, because this Congress is doing something extraordinary. Nearly 20 years after we passed a measure to address the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and 10 years after the conflict in Iraq officially ended, we are reasserting our constitutional responsibility over matters of war and peace by finally repealing the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force. This isn't an arcane legislative maneuver or simply some rhetorical exercise. This AUMF has been used over and over again to expand the mission and range of targets of U.S. military operations in Iraq never imagined when it was passed. In fact, President Trump misused it as recently as last January to justify the strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. The impacts of that decision dramatically escalated tensions between the United States and Iran and throughout the region, tensions that persist to this very day. Madam Speaker, the process that we are starting here today with H.R. 256 provides a roadmap for Congress to get off the sidelines and to stop abdicating its constitutional responsibility to debate matters of war and peace. That is what our Founders intended. They knew that decisions of such magnitude should not be made in a vacuum solely by a President. That is why the Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief but gives only Congress the power to declare war. It is no secret that for a long time there were Members on both sides of the aisle who preferred to skirt that responsibility. They left such consequential decisions to whoever sat at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Republican or Democrat. But each of us was elected and sent here to do more than just make the easy calls. We were sent here to make tough decisions, especially when it involves sending our uniformed men and women, the people we represent, into harm's way and shoveling billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars overseas. A growing number of Members, both Democrats and Republicans, have been working together to reclaim our Article I powers. There is now a bipartisan, bicameral consensus that we not only have to end endless wars, but we have to reexamine the shrinking congressional authority and the expanding executive powers that get us into global conflicts in the first place and, like inertia, keep us there for decades. The Rules Committee has been working with the House Foreign Affairs Committee to do just that because everything has changed since Congress enacted the original War Powers Resolution over President Nixon's veto more than 50 years ago. When we fight, how we fight, and why we fight, these are big issues that merit our most engaged attention and resolve. We have a responsibility to make sure that these laws and authorities work in the modern age. I want to thank, in particular, Ranking Member Cole on the Rules Committee for working with me in this effort. He has been pushing to reclaim Congress' Article I responsibilities, no matter which party controls Congress or who sits in the White House. I know that sometimes it has been a lonely journey, but he has never stopped fighting because it is the right thing to do for this country and for this institution. I also want to thank Chairman Meeks and Ranking Member McCaul for working with us on this bipartisan effort. Again, I want to thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee for being consistent and never giving up in her effort not only to end endless wars but to make sure that Congress lives up to its constitutional responsibilities. I am grateful that we also have a President in office today who supports reevaluating executive war powers. I have to be honest, Madam Speaker, I never thought I would see that day. But President Biden spent decades in the Senate grappling with the limitations of the War Powers Resolution, and he has a record of looking for ways to change it. This opportunity is like lightning in a bottle. We have a coalition in Congress trying to get this done, and now the missing piece, a President in the Oval Office with the political will to take this on, is hopefully now falling into place. I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in seizing this moment. Let's make the repeal of the 2002 AUMF the first step in not only repealing and reforming outdated AUMFs but reimagining the War Powers Resolution for the modern age. President Johnson once said that it is damn easy to get into a war, but it is awfully hard to get out of one. We are here today because of the truth of that statement. It should never be that Congress, and the people we represent, are sidelined on the life-or-death questions of when to go to war and when to come home. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I include in the Record a June 1 Newsweek article titled ``Congress Has a Chance To Reclaim Its War Powers.'' [June 1, 2021] Congress Has a Chance To Reclaim Its War Powers (By Dan Caldwell) In response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, then-President George W. Bush signed into law the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force to provide the legal authority to pursue and punish those responsible. The following year, the 2002 AUMF was passed to authorize the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein. Over the last 20 years, both laws have been used to justify military actions disconnected from their original intent. These laws--unmodified since their original passage--have sanctioned combat operations in at least 19 countries. Successive congresses have abdicated their constitutionally prescribed role in foreign policy, allowing four presidential administrations to exploit the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs and stretch their Article II authorities. Multiple military conflicts have been expanded or initiated with minimal congressional oversight and debate. It is past time for Congress to firmly reassert its role in shaping U.S. foreign policy. After 20 years of endless war, it owes its constituents--including our men and women in uniform--a better foreign policy that prioritizes keeping Americans safe. Rather than abdicating its solemn duties, Congress must inquire, ``Why, at what cost, and toward what end?'' are young American servicemembers sent to fight and die for ill-premised objectives that are fundamentally disconnected from vital national interests. Further evasion of these hard questions cheapens the ``true faith and allegiance'' they swore to uphold when elected to office. Over 7,000 Americans have lost their lives and tens of thousands more wounded in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Africa. These conflicts have cost the American taxpayer over $6.4 trillion dollars--a number that will surely continue to grow as wars drag on and the cost of caring for veterans of these wars is tallied. Congress has several ways it can help bring an end to our endless wars while helping shape a better foreign policy. First, in the coming months the House of Representatives will likely have an opportunity to repeal the 2002 AUMF by passing legislation introduced by Representative Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)--a stalwart champion of Congress reclaiming its powers in matters of war and peace. A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate by Senators Todd Young (R-Ind.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.), which has been endorsed by the Biden administration. Additional legislation repealing the outdated 1957 and 1991 AUMFs has been introduced by Representatives Peter Meijer (R-Mich.) and Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.). Passage of these bipartisan bills should be a no-brainer for a Congress bitterly divided on other issues and an important first step toward Congress reclaiming its most important prerogative. Congress should also consider revision--or outright repeal--of the 2001 AUMF. More than the 2002 AUMF, this law has been stretched to justify conflicts far afield from its original intent of authorizing operations against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11. It is worth acknowledging that the underlying purpose of the 2001 AUMF has been satisfied: Osama bin Laden is dead, Al-Qaeda has been decimated and the Taliban severely punished. And despite never being amended, this authorization has been cited to account for operations against groups that didn't even exist on 9/11 in places such as Somalia and Libya. If Congress repeals the 2001 AUMF, the executive branch still has the authority to authorize military operations to repel imminent attacks and to engage in self-defense (although Congress should take steps to ensure that this authority isn't stretched too far, as it was by President Joe Biden's recent airstrikes in Syria). If Congress identifies a need to replace the 2001 AUMF, it should authorize force against clear targets given specified objectives, geographic boundaries and clear sunsets. Congress should also use its power of the purse to assert its authority in foreign policy. This is in many ways the most effective tool Congress has and it has been used successfully in the past to end American involvement in conflicts, including Vietnam. Repealing outdated AUMFs and helping end our forever wars around the globe would enjoy broad support from the American people. Poll after poll has shown a majority of Americans want an end to our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while also supporting Congress playing a greater role in authorizing military conflicts abroad. I am proud to have deployed to Iraq as a U.S. Marine. Many of those I served with are still in uniform and are still deploying to war zones on a regular basis, even if they harbor doubts about the necessity of those conflicts. Congress owes it to them to step up and do its job by reasserting itself in matters of war and peace. Failing to do so dishonors those who have and who continue to serve overseas in the wars that have dragged on in part due to congressional inaction.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, over the last 20 years, both the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs have been used to justify military actions disconnected from their original intent. I want to say to my colleague from Pennsylvania that we are grateful for his service to our country. But the fact is that we are still operating under an AUMF that we passed almost 20 years ago, almost two decades ago. When we were debating that AUMF--an AUMF that I voted against--there is no way that we would have anticipated what the realities are now. The notion that somehow we can't, as a body, come together and revisit these AUMFs on a regular basis, to me, is beyond comprehension. We owe it to the men and women who serve our country in our Armed Forces to make sure that we are doing our due diligence. The President has multiple authorities, by the way, to be able to respond to any threats against individual U.S. citizens almost anywhere in the world. But if people are trying to use this AUMF as a way to potentially have a war with Iran, let me just say this: If that is what anybody's goal is, you better damn well come back to Congress and have a debate, and people ought to be able to vote yes or no on it. Many of us are concerned that these lingering AUMFs are going to be misconstrued and misinterpreted and misused. I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy. President Biden supports the Lee bill. He doesn't see any need to have a continuation of the 2002 AUMF. If the President of the United States doesn't see a need to continue it, I don't know why we feel we have to continue something that is clearly outdated. Statement of Administration Policy h.r. 256--repeal of authorization for use of military force--against iraq resolution of 2002--rep. lee, d-ca with 134 co-sponsors The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 256, to repeal the Authorization for Use of of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (``2002 AUMF''). This bipartisan legislation would terminate the October 16, 2002, statutory authorization for the use of military force against Iraq. The Administration supports the repeal of the 2002 AUMF, as the United States has no ongoing military activities that rely solely on the 2002 AUMF as a domestic legal basis, and repeal of the 2002 AUMF would likely have minimal impact on current military operations. Furthermore, the President is committed to working with the Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework appropriate to ensure that we can continue to protect Americans from terrorist threats. In working with the Congress on repealing and replacing other existing authorizations of military force, the Administration seeks to ensure that the Congress has a clear and thorough understanding of the effect of any such action and of the threats facing U.S. forces, personnel, and interests around the world. As the Administration works with the Congress to reform AUMFs, it will be critical to maintain the clear authority to address threats to the United States' national interests with appropriately decisive and effective military action.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, what a crock. I mean, it is hard to hear anybody on the other side of the aisle talk about government shutdowns. I remember when they lost this place 3 years ago. What did they do? They left us with a government shutdown. First time ever in history, the Republican majority did that. The gentleman is saying we are not going to vote on this stuff. Maybe he doesn't understand the legislative process. Let me remind everybody that we have to vote on every single cent that we put forward here. We have an appropriations process. Maybe the gentleman doesn't understand that. But every cent that we spend has to be voted on by people in this Chamber. So nobody is not going to vote on anything. Let me just put this in perspective. Yes, the President's budget was late, and given the timing of the President's budget, the Appropriations Committee needs to get started to start doing their work, unless my friends don't want the Appropriations Committee to do their work. Deeming a top-line number for appropriators is a housekeeping item that we can take care of so they can move forward, and we can then turn our attention to a budget resolution and enacting the transformational policies included in the President's American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan. Here's the thing that really gets me when I hear people have meltdowns on the floor. This process has been used by Republicans and Democrats alike in order to allow appropriators to get started on their work. Ever since the first deeming resolution in fiscal year 1999, when Republicans were in charge, overall House Republican majorities used deemers nine times, including for fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2019. Boy, how convenient it is to forget about all of that. But, then, again, facts don't seem to matter. Just one other thing. When the gentleman used the term ``big lie,'' I don't want to be lectured by anybody about a big lie, especially by individuals who voted deliberately to overturn the will of the American people, to undermine our democracy. I will not be lectured to by anybody on that matter. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I don't even know what to say. The response to the situation at our border and to the people who are fleeing their countries in Central America to try to seek refugee in the United States, the response that the Republicans just came up with basically is saying we are going to withhold any money for Vice President Harris' travel budget unless she goes to the border and does a photo op. We are supposed to be a serious legislative body. We are supposed to be the most serious, most deliberative legislative body in the world, and my friends say we are going to withhold her travel budget unless she goes to the border and does a photo op. That is what this is. Never mind that Vice President Harris represented California as a United States Senator, which is a border State. Never mind that she just went to Central America because people are coming to our border from places like El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Never mind she went to some of these countries where people are fleeing so we can try to figure out how to deal with this issue. My Republican friends have brought to the House floor a bill that basically says: You know what? Our solution is you either go and do a photo op at the border or we are going to withhold your travel budget. I mean, really? That is a serious legislative proposal? I don't even know how to respond to that, other than to say that, you could have come up with something better. This isn't even worth any more of my time talking about it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman can come and huff and puff all he wants on the House floor, but, again, I remind people that the solution that is being put forward by my Republican friends is to withhold the Vice President's travel budget until she does a photo op. I think this is beneath, quite frankly, the dignity of this legislative body. I would also say to the gentleman that what the Vice President was trying to do was get at the source of migration, of people coming to our border, trying to solve the problem. She was spending her time trying to figure out how to solve the problem, not try to figure out how to overturn the last election; not trying to figure out how to reinstate the last President who lost the election not only fair and square, but by a pretty big margin, but actually trying to solve problems. It is hard to sit here and listen to some of the things we have listened to here today and then be told: Oh, here is our proposal. I mean, come on. Give me a break. Let's get back to trying to figure out to solve problems rather than try to score political points. And if you are going to try to score political points, certainly you can come up with a better idea than this. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I don't know what the gentleman was talking about, about woke yuppies and all this other kind of stuff he was talking about here today, but Democrats actually believe in science. We believe that climate change is real. We believe that we ought to have some accountability, especially in the corporate world, as to what they are doing and how they are reporting their actions. I find this so concerning that we can't even have a debate on what, in fact, the underlying legislation is. I think the bill that Congresswoman Waters has brought to the floor is a commonsense bill that I hope even some Republicans might support. I would also say that the other piece of legislation that we were talking about here today is Barbara Lee's bill to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Many of us have been urging that we repeal that 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force for quite a while now. It has passed the House and it has passed committee. Yet here we are again, and now we have a President of the United States that says that he no longer wants that, that he actually supports what we are trying to do here. Yet we still have people on the House floor who say, no, we need to hold onto it, an Authorization for Use of Military Force that we passed almost 20 years ago that somehow is applicable today. That just doesn't make any sense to me. People like Congresswoman Lee; Congressman Adam Smith; the late Republican Congressman, Walter Jones; and Congressman Tom Cole have talked about the need for us to reclaim our constitutional powers when it comes to committing American forces into harm's way. Quite frankly, many of us have been raising this issue--didn't matter who was in the White House, whether it was a Democrat or a Republican-- because we think it is the right thing to do. We think somehow it is cowardice for Congress to just keep on kicking the can down the road to ignoring these important debates. You have those debates, and if people decide to continue the same old, same old, fine. That is what the majority of people here vote for. If people decide to end it, that ought to be fine, too. That is what we are here for. I think this institution would be better served if we took our constitutional responsibilities with regard to war and peace more seriously. Today, I hope we will pass this rule and we will then pass the Lee bill. But it isn't the end of our work. We are going to need to continue to review and repeal and reform outdated Authorizations for Use of Military Force, and we need to reimagine the broader issues embedded in the War Powers Resolution, because never again should we acquiesce and allow Congress to sit on the sidelines as wars are crafted and carried out by the White House, wars that never end, wars that sacrifice lives and sacrifice treasure. Let's respect our troops. Let's respect their families. Let's respect this institution. Let's finally get back to doing our jobs, taking responsibility and voting on issues of war and peace. And let's start today by supporting this rule and the underlying measures. The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 473 At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 9. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 3403) to limit travel by the Vice President until after certain activities are undertaken with respect to the southwest border, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 3403.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my 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. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House Resolution 409. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3233 to establish a National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security or their designees and provides one motion to recommit. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3237, the Emergency Security Supplemental to Respond to January 6 Appropriations Act, 2021, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, it has been 133 days since an angry mob of insurrectionists tried to stop the certification of a free and fair election in America. The question before us today is this: What are we going to do about it? Some of my colleagues on the other side want to sweep this dark chapter under the rug. Just last week, one Republican said the events of January 6 resembled a ``normal tourist visit.'' Madam Speaker, I was here presiding over the House on January 6. People died that day. Police officers were beaten and bloodied. America's Capitol, the symbol of our freedom and the citadel of our democracy, was desecrated by a mob that wanted to invalidate an election. There was nothing normal about it. It is not normal for a mob to break into this complex to try and hang the Vice President of the United States and harm other elected officials. It is not normal for insurrectionists to try to stop the certification of an American election, one that judge after judge after judge said was free and fair. And it is not normal for Congress to respond by doing nothing. That is why we are considering the underlying legislation contained in this rule. It will establish a bipartisan 9/ 11-style commission to investigate what happened, a commission led not by politicians, but by experts. Now let me say this plainly: A vote for this commission is a vote to make sure this never happens again. And I want to recognize the incredible work of the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security in navigating this truly bipartisan deal. It is one that will keep the focus where it should be, solely on the events of January 6. And I look forward to the Commission's report at the end of the year. But the truth is, we cannot wait until then to fix what we already know needs fixing. We need to upgrade the physical safety of this and other Federal buildings. We need to increase security in district offices, repay the National Guard for their service in the aftermath of the insurrection, and provide support to the overworked Capitol Police force that keep us all safe day after day. Madam Speaker, this is how you respond responsibly to what happened 4 months ago, not with deflection or mistruths, but by taking action to protect not only this complex and those who work, serve, and visit here, but to also protect our very democracy, and making sure we never become a country that lets any angry mob decide who the next President will be. Madam Speaker, only the voters can do that. We need to put the facts on Record here, to tell the truth and not spread lies. And the truth is that some on the other side are afraid to do anything around here because they are afraid, afraid of the truth, afraid because their leadership doesn't want to offend the ex-President and his big lie. That is all I could think of when I read the minority leader's deeply troubling statement opposing the January 6 commission. Now, even though it is bipartisan, even though his own ranking member negotiated the deal, even though we gave him virtually everything he asked for during the negotiations, a Republican aide said it best when they were quoted in the press yesterday saying this: ``I think Kevin was hoping that the Democrats would never agree to our requests; That way the commission would be partisan and we can all vote ``no'' and say it is a sham operation, because he knows Trump is going to lose his mind.'' Lose his mind over a bipartisan commission. Madam Speaker, this moment is a choice, a choice between the truth or siding with the originator of the big lie. To my friends on the other side, I am asking you to lead with the courage of your convictions. Vote your conscience. Support this bipartisan commission, not just because it is the right thing to do, but support it out of respect, out of respect for your colleagues, for your staff and the support staff here, for the Capitol Police, but, most importantly, respect for this institution. Now, I have cast some tough votes in my career, but casting a vote to establish a bipartisan commission to establish an insurrection is not one of them. I appeal to my colleagues to do the right thing, to lead with courage, and support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reference the text of S. 937 and H. Res. 275, a bill and a resolution we are considering this week. S. 937 was passed yesterday, and right after this debate, we are going to adopt H. Res. 275. They are two pieces of legislation condemning hate crimes against Asian Americans in this country. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 409 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also agree with the gentleman that Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Katko deserve an enormous amount of credit. They negotiated a truly bipartisan deal. I have taken note of the letter that Minority Leader McCarthy sent to Speaker Pelosi of all the things he wanted in this deal, and he got virtually every one of them, all in this bipartisan deal. Now, all of a sudden, it is not good enough. All of the concerns that my good friend raised are addressed in this bill. The commission could look at anything and investigate anything related to the violence that occurred here on January 6. I mean, what happened here, isn't that a big enough deal to merit an investigation? I don't get it. In the bill, by the way, is language that is quite clear about how this commission will not interfere with any other ongoing investigations. In fact, very similar to the 9/11 commission, it will be informed by other investigations and complement other investigations. So, again, I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote for this commission, out of respect for the people who work here, out of respect for this institution, out of respect for our democracy. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a statement from the family of United States Capitol Officer Howie Liebengood, who died by suicide. His death was a direct result of the trauma and strain from the January 6 attack. Madam Speaker, in the statement, the family of Officer Liebengood states: ``We believe a thorough, nonpartisan investigation into the root causes of and the response to the January 6 riot is essential for our Nation to move forward. Howie's death was an immediate outgrowth of those events.'' Liebengood Family Statement on the January 6th Commission and Security Supplemental Family of fallen USCP Officer Howie Liebengood calls on Congress to pass both pieces of legislation Washington, DC--Today, the Office of Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton (D-VA) released the following statement from the family of United States Capitol Police Officer Howie Liebengood regarding the National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act and the Emergency Security Supplemental to Respond to January 6th Appropriations Act. ``We believe a thorough, non-partisan investigation into the root causes of and the response to the January 6th riot is essential for our nation to move forward. Howie's death was an immediate outgrowth of those events. Every officer who worked that day, as well as their families, should have a better understanding of what happened. Uncovering the facts will help our nation heal and may lessen the lingering emotional bitterness that has divided our country. We implore Congress to work as one and establish the proposed Commission. ``Additionally, improved mental health for USCP officers has been one of our goals for the past four months. Through the tireless efforts of Congresswoman Wexton, we are honored a wellness program bearing Howie's name has been proposed in the security supplemental along with more resources for the program. We welcome and support the new funding and staffing initiatives that will help prevent future tragedies among the

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a May 19 letter from the Bipartisan Policy Center in support of H.R. 3233, the National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act. In the letter, the cochairs of the 9/11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Representative Lee Hamilton state: ``A full accounting of the events of January 6 and the identification of measures to strengthen the Congress can help our country heal.'' [From BPC Action] BPC Action Urges Support for H.R. 3233 H.R. 3233, the ``National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act,'' is a crucial step for the country to get the truth of those shocking events and agree on how to ensure they never occur again. The Bipartisan Policy Center is encouraged that the agreement reflects the principles of 9-11 Commission chairs Gov. Tom Kean and Rep. Lee Hamilton, who stated, ``A full accounting of the events of January 6th and the identification of measures to strengthen the Congress can help our country heal.'' A single narrative of the facts of that day and actionable recommendations for preventing them from recurring are the predicate for ensuring our democracy is respected and protected. This bipartisan, independent commission is structured so experts will be empowered to objectively assess the evidence and chart a path forward. In this midst of opportunity for growth and healing, it is crucial that we reflect on our history: the strength of the 9/11 commission was that it was bipartisan and unified by the imperative of national security. Twenty years later, we are reminded of the security challenges this nation faces, and we must come together in the same way we did following 9/11. We applaud the House and Senate committees and law enforcement investigations that have laid groundwork for an independent commission to begin its work--and House and Senate leaders, especially Chairman Bennie Thompson and Ranking Member John Katko, for creating a process that has a real chance for success. We urge Congress to support H.R. 3233.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), who is the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let's be clear that opposition to this commission is not about substance or policy; it really is about politics, plain and simple. At least, my Republican colleagues in the Senate side are willing to admit that. Senator Thune said that there is concern among Republicans that the findings could be ``weaponized politically and drug into next year''. I get that his members want to ``be moving forward and not looking backward,'' but this was an attack on the United States Capitol, and all the people who work here. It was an attack on our democracy. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a CNN article entitled ``Republicans fear January 6 probe could undercut 2022 midterm message.'' [From CNN, May 19, 2021] Republicans Fear January 6 Probe Could Undercut 2022 Midterm Message (By Manu Raju) Senior Republicans are making clear they have little interest in moving forward with a sweeping January 6 investigation in part because a detailed probe could become politically damaging and amount to a distraction for their party just as control of Congress is at stake in next year's midterm elections. Publicly and privately, Republicans are making that case, with Senate GOP Whip John Thune noting that there's concern among some GOP members that the findings of the probe ``could be weaponized politically and drug into next year.'' ``I want our midterm message to be on the kinds of things that the American people are dealing with: That's jobs and wages and the economy and national security, safe streets and strong borders--not relitigating the 2020 elections,'' Thune told CNN. ``A lot of our members, and I think this is true of a lot of House Republicans, want to be moving forward and not looking backward. Anything that gets us rehashing the 2020 elections I think is a day lost on being able to draw a contrast between us the Democrats' very radical left-wing agenda.'' Thune's comments came moments after Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell announced his opposition on the floor, contending it would duplicate ongoing probes and contending the deal--which was reached between a House Republican and House Democrat--is designed to find a conclusion that would be in ``Democrats' hands.'' The commission would be structured so 10 members--chosen equally between the leaders from both political parties--could report by year's end on what happened on January 6, as well as the ``influencing factors'' behind it. It's clear that such an investigation would also look at then-President Donald Trump's role in promoting the January 6 ``Stop the Steal'' rally, his lies that the election was stolen and his efforts to subvert the will of voters. Moreover, it could put an uncomfortable focus on some conservative GOP senators and House members who sought to overturn the election results in Congress, while keeping the issue front-and-center as the investigation plays out over the next year. And there are ample questions about whether House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy would be forced to testify to explain what Trump was saying on January 6 given the two spoke during a heated phone call that day. ``It would be a distraction,'' one senior GOP source told CNN, arguing any investigation should also look at left-wing extremism as well. Similar concerns were voiced through the Senate Republican Conference on Wednesday, coming hours after a group of members huddled privately with McCarthy earlier in the morning. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and member of leadership, said that in addition to his concern about a commission's work overlapping with criminal probes, he accused House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of pushing the investigation to help Democrats' chances at keeping control of Congress. ``Well, part of the concern is that's the plan,'' Cornyn said. ``That's Pelosi's plan.'' If the probe dragged out until the next year, he added: ``That would be the Democrats' dream. . . . I generally don't try to help Democrats.'' While the bill is expected to pass the House on Wednesday, it's an open question whether it will pass the Senate, where 60 votes would be needed to break a GOP filibuster. Thune, the chief GOP vote counter, said they haven't taken the caucus' temperature yet on the plan. ``I would say that there's a skepticism about what's happening in the House right now and whether or not what comes out is a proposal that will be fair.'' Sen. Gary Peters, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said there's a reason why Republicans are battling the commission. ``They're afraid of the truth because it puts them on the wrong side of what is right,'' Peters, a Michigan Democrat, said Wednesday. Asked if he is concerned the probe could last into the midterm season when the GOP wants to focus on jobs, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said: ``There's a lot of stuff we need to focus on.'' ``Why shift our attention away from that, when we already have an infrastructure in place to address a lot of the things that the commission seems to be stood up to address,'' Tillis asked. ``Seems redundant.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).