The only thing that has changed from last year when this passed on a unanimous voice vote to this year is, apparently, this year, some of my colleagues are willing to have the military enforce domestic policy in violation of the law and…

I want to just say that I am in complete agreement with my colleague about the cold, but I am not in agreement about the amendment. Mr. Speaker, there is a profound concern that we all ought to share that President Bolsonaro may be…

First of all, my colleague says that we already have laws against the military unlawfully engaging in the enforcement of domestic policy. We only have laws against certain branches of the military doing that. This bill would expand that to…

Is there time remaining in opposition or should I close? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama has time remaining.

I have an amendment at the desk. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: At the end of subtitle D of title V, add the following new section: SEC. 5__. PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF…

I urge support for the bill. Again, this bill does not require proceedings to be available online, but it does ensure that judges have that authority. I think that this is something that the victims would like because the victims would…

I very much share his concern and have been expressing a very similar concern really for months now.

I have an amendment at the desk. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: At the end of subtitle E of title V, add the following new section: SEC. 5__. EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE…

Well, I think we`ve had a conflict in the testimony on that where, as you saw, White House counsel didn`t believe that there had been an appointment, so the paperwork hadn`t been done.

the idea that a year and a half after these events, they would not have talked to these witnesses, that even the Fulton County district attorney is way ahead of them. It’s I think cause for great concern.

I think there’s a desire for Justice Department to restore the independence of the department to avoid controversy.

I very much share his concern and have been expressing a very similar concern really for months now.

if they take that too far, that is the desire to avoid controversy, and they somehow in practical effect immunize the former president because it would be controversial to investigate a former president, that’s a political decision and I…

That supreme dereliction of duty while the Capitol was being attacked.

He knew the claims he was making to the public were false. He continued to make them.

It's clear that after these other efforts to overturn the election failed, his last ditch effort was going to be to summon the mob.

At some point, did one of them make a comment that they didn't have evidence but they had a lot of theories?

I think the clear intent was to influence the witnesses to potential testimony or testimony, and so I think it's quite obvious what the President was trying to do.

Can we be confident that he will not continue to try to cheat in that very election? ... The short, plain, sad, incontestable answer is no, you can't.

It is very unusual for a local district attorney's office to be way out ahead of the U.S. Justice Department in a case of federal and national significance.

I think that provided some important evidence to the district attorney's office.

We all had those calls, certainly all of us on the committee. And we confirm with each other, about the threat environment out there, what we are hearing from people.

The next hearing will focus on quote efforts to assemble that mob in the mall, end quote.

Our very next hearing will be focused on the efforts to assemble that mob on the Mall.

It was to succeed where he had failed through every other means and that was to stop the transfer of power to overturn the election to cling to his office.