The House voted mostly along party lines on Wednesday to create a select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, pushing ahead over Republican opposition with an inquiry into security failures and the origins of the deadliest attack on Congress in centuries.
Under a plan devised by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the 13-member panel will be dominated by Democrats, with eight members to be named by the majority party and five with input from Republicans. The select committee, which will have subpoena power, will investigate “the facts, circumstances and causes relating to the Jan. 6, 2021, domestic terrorist attack” by a pro-Trump mob, according to its organizing resolution.
The measure passed 222 to 190, with only two Republicans joining the Democrats to support it.
“We have the duty, to the Constitution and the country, to find the truth of the Jan. 6 insurrection and to ensure that such an assault on our democracy cannot happen again,” Ms. Pelosi wrote in a letter to all House members on Wednesday. “It is clear that Jan. 6 was not simply an attack on a building, but an attack on our very democracy.”
In her letter, Ms. Pelosi said the committee was necessary because Senate Republicans, at the urging of Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, had blocked the formation of an independent, bipartisan inquiry into the assault, leaving Congress with “no prospect for a commission at this time.”
Several officers who were injured in the attack were on hand to watch the vote from Ms. Pelosi’s box in the House gallery. They included Harry Dunn of the Capitol Police and two District of Columbia police officers: Michael Fanone, who has lobbied Republicans to support an investigation, and Daniel Hodges, who was crushed in a door during the rampage. Relatives of Brian Sicknick, a Capitol Police officer who died after clashing with the rioters, joined them.
While the measure says that five members of the panel are to be named “after consultation with the minority leader,” Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, Mr. McCarthy has not said whether he will recommend anyone. Last week, he told police officers injured in the riot that he would take the appointment process seriously.
One of Ms. Pelosi’s aides said she was considering picking a Republican who has acknowledged the gravity of the attack for one of her eight slots. Many have speculated that she might select Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, a former member of House Republican leadership who was removed from her post after she pushed the party to hold itself and former President Donald J. Trump responsible for fomenting the riot with false claims that the 2020 election had been stolen.
Ms. Cheney, one of only 35 House Republicans who voted to create an independent commission, also broke with her party on Wednesday to vote in favor of forming the select committee.
“I believe this select committee is our only remaining option,” she said in a statement. “The committee should issue and enforce subpoenas promptly, hire skilled counsel, and do its job thoroughly and expeditiously.”
Only one other Republican, Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, an outspoken critic of Mr. Trump, supported the investigation.
The rest of the party lined up in opposition to the panel, which their leaders insisted would be a partisan forum for attacking Mr. Trump and kneecapping Republicans in the 2022 elections.
Representative Michelle Fischbach, Republican of Minnesota, argued that the committee would duplicate existing investigations and engage in “partisan, divisive politics.”
“We gave you bipartisan,” Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, responded, referring to the proposed independent inquiry, which would have had an equal number of Democrat- and Republican-appointed members. “Give me a break. This is clear: They don’t want to get to the truth.”
The Times’s Visual Investigations team has spent six months reviewing thousands of videos, many filmed by rioters and since deleted from social media, to reconstruct the most complete picture to date of what happened at the Capitol riot on Jan. 6.
They filed motions to unseal police body-camera footage, scoured law enforcement radio communications, reviewed internal police investigations, identified key players, and synchronized and mapped the visual evidence to create this 40-minute video.
With a record-shattering heat wave suffocating much of the Pacific Northwest and a drought-fueled wildfire season already well underway, President Biden pledged on Wednesday to keep federal firefighters on duty for a longer season, and to increase their pay.
But he cautioned that the United States was years behind in developing a strategy to combat the worsening fires and their underlying causes, including climate change.
“The fact is, we’re playing catch-up,” Mr. Biden said during a virtual meeting with leaders of Western states, adding that he was surprised at the absence of federal attention to the details of firefighting when he came to office. “Right now we have to act, and act fast.”
But many of the proposals Mr. Biden discussed — including a permanent raise for federal firefighters to roughly $15 an hour, early satellite detection of fires and better firefighting equipment — were unlikely to be ready for the wildfire season that has already begun in parts of the West, a senior administration official acknowledged on Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
The exception would be some immediate bonuses for firefighters.
Human-caused climate change, combined with continued home construction in fire-prone areas, is making wildfires more frequent and dangerous across the United States. After President Donald J. Trump downplayed both climate change and its link to wildfires, Mr. Biden has sought to show that his administration is grappling with the crisis.
Yet Mr. Biden said there were a few areas where he could act by executive authority, including extending the season for firefighters, so that “seasonal firefighters can stay on the job as long as they are needed.” And he said he was announcing an immediate grant of “fire mitigation funding” to Sonoma County, Calif., which was devastated by fires last year. Sonoma was among the first to apply for the new funding.
Mr. Biden had asked for the briefing on federal and state preparedness for the fire season, similar to what he and his predecessors often receive at the opening of hurricane season.
Wednesday’s meeting was attended by the governors of California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming and Washington.
In a call secretly recorded by an individual working for the environmental group Greenpeace UK, a veteran oil-industry lobbyist described efforts by Exxon Mobil to undermine government action on climate change.
During the call with a person he believed was a recruiter, Keith McCoy, a senior director of federal relations for Exxon, described how the oil and gas giant had targeted influential United States senators in an effort to weaken climate action in President Biden’s flagship infrastructure plan. That plan now contains few of the ambitious ideas Mr. Biden initially proposed to reduce the burning of fossil fuels, the main driver of climate change.
Mr. McCoy also said that Exxon’s support for a tax on carbon dioxide was “a great talking point” for the oil company, but that he did not believe the tax would ever happen. He also said that the company had aggressively fought climate science through “shadow groups.”
Darren Woods, Exxon’s chief executive, said in a statement that the comments “in no way represent the company’s position on a variety of issues, including climate policy, and our firm commitment that carbon pricing is important to addressing climate change,” and that Mr. McCoy and another lobbyist interviewed in the recording “were never involved in developing the company’s policy positions on the issues discussed.”
Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense for Presidents Gerald R. Ford and George W. Bush, who presided over America’s Cold War strategies in the 1970s and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq decades later, died on Tuesday at his home in Taos, N.M. He was 88.
The cause was multiple myeloma, said Keith Urbahn, a spokesman for the family.
Encores are hardly rare in the Washington merry-go-round, but Mr. Rumsfeld had the distinction of being the only defense chief to serve two nonconsecutive terms: 1975 to 1977 under Mr. Ford, and 2001 to 2006 under Mr. Bush. He was also the youngest, at 43, and the oldest, at 74, to hold the post — first in an era of Soviet-American nuclear perils, then in an age of subtler menace by terrorists and rogue states.
A staunch ally of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who had been his protégé and friend for years, Mr. Rumsfeld was a combative infighter who seemed to relish conflicts as he challenged cabinet rivals, members of Congress and military orthodoxies. And he was widely regarded in his second tour as the most powerful defense secretary since Robert S. McNamara during the Vietnam War.
Like his counterpart of long ago, Mr. Rumsfeld in Iraq waged a costly and divisive war that ultimately destroyed his political life and outlived his tenure by many years. But unlike Mr. McNamara, who offered mea culpas in a 2003 documentary, “The Fog of War,” Mr. Rumsfeld acknowledged no serious failings and warned in a farewell address at the Pentagon that leaving Iraq would be a terrible mistake.
“A conclusion by our enemies that the United States lacks the will or the resolve to carry out our missions that demand sacrifice and demand patience is every bit as dangerous as an imbalance of conventional military power,” he said. “It may well be comforting to some to consider graceful exits from the agonies and, indeed, the ugliness of combat. But the enemy thinks differently.”
In his 2011 memoir, “Known and Unknown,” Mr. Rumsfeld still expressed no regrets over the decision to invade Iraq, which had cost the United States $700 billion and 4,400 American lives, insisting that the removal of President Saddam Hussein had justified the effort. “Ridding the region of Saddam’s brutal regime has created a more stable and secure world,” he wrote.
Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas and former President Donald J. Trump denounced the Biden administration during a visit to the border on Wednesday, reiterating one of Republicans’ most frequent lines of attack.
In what was effectively a news conference, Mr. Abbott and other officials described the border situation to Mr. Trump as though briefing a sitting president. Several House Republicans, including Representative Ronny Jackson of Texas, traveled to the border for Mr. Trump’s visit, missing a vote in the House on establishing a select committee to investigate the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.
“The people of Texas have been pleading for us to be able to step up and help restore safety and security in their lives,” Mr. Abbott said. “That is exactly why Texas is stepping up and doing a job that is truly the federal government’s job, a job that you did but a job that the Biden administration is completely failing.”
The director of the Texas Department of Public Safety and the sheriffs of Tarrant and Brooks Counties gave presentations on the recent increase in illegal border crossings and the threats posed by Mexican gangs and drug cartels.
Sheriff Bill E. Waybourn of Tarrant County, which includes Fort Worth and is more than 350 miles from the border, described a recent increase in smuggling of the opioid drug fentanyl and told Mr. Trump, “A year ago, fentanyl was barely on our radar.” (Border Patrol officials have reported a drastic increase in the amount of fentanyl seized this year, but the numbers began rising three years ago.)
When it was Mr. Trump’s turn, he delivered a rambling speech defending his handling of the border while president and falsely claiming that the wall he repeatedly promised to build across the 2,000-mile border had been months away from completion when he left office. The Trump administration built roughly 450 miles of border wall, nearly all of it in areas where dilapidated barriers existed or vehicle barriers had once stood.
Mr. Biden halted border wall construction on his first day as president.
“Within a few months you would have had the wall totally complete and they were going to paint it,” Mr. Trump said. “They were supposed to paint the wall. They aren’t even doing that. They got to get a coat of paint on the wall. Believe it or not, it does rust. Maybe that’s what they like — let it rust, let it rot.”
The issue of border security has dogged the Biden administration as border crossings have surged. Last week, Vice President Kamala Harris, whom Mr. Biden put in charge of addressing the root causes of migration, traveled to El Paso, her first visit to the southern border since she took office. Ms. Harris received a briefing from Customs and Border Protection and met with girls detained at a border facility.
The Transportation Department announced on Wednesday that it would award $905 million in grants to two dozen state projects, including major repairs to a cracking bridge in Seattle and improvements to an 11-mile loop in Washington State that is meant to be a transportation hub, in an effort to strengthen the nation’s crumbling infrastructure.
Reflecting the Biden administration’s campaign pledges, the department considered how each initiative addressed racial equity, climate change and environmental justice. Other determining factors included how the projects would aid local economies and create jobs.
“Historically, infrastructure didn’t always serve all people equally,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said during a news conference on Wednesday. He added that the department wanted to “be very clear upfront about how things like equity and things like climate mattered.”
Mr. Buttigieg also lauded the $579 billion bipartisan infrastructure deal, which was thrown into turmoil when President Biden indicated last week that he would not sign it unless it was accompanied by a partisan bill containing much of the rest of his $4 trillion economic agenda. Mr. Biden has since walked back his comments, reassuring Republicans that he is committed to the bipartisan pact.
Mr. Buttigieg said the grants showed what the nation could “replicate at a greater scale” if Congress passed the agreement.
“This is a framework that will make our infrastructure more resilient to extreme weather, which is something especially on our minds as we see what’s happening in the Northwest,” he said, referring to the heat wave that has blanketed the Pacific Northwest.
Pennsylvania, California, Georgia, Iowa and Washington are among the 18 states slated to receive the grants. Congress has 60 days to review the department’s proposals.
Under the proposals, Pennsylvania would receive about $21 million to improve a segment of Route 61 that is at risk of closing because of deterioration and flooding. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation would be awarded $18 million to improve the safety of its streets.
Americans will be allowed to declare their self-identified gender on their U.S. passports without providing medical documents under a new State Department rule announced on Wednesday, the final day of Pride Month.
The shift was the first step toward creating a gender marker on U.S. passports and citizenship certificates for people who identify as nonbinary or intersex, or otherwise do not conform to gender roles. That process is complex and will take time to complete, according to a statement by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken.
In the meantime, officials said, Americans applying for passports and proof of citizenship when born abroad will no longer need to show medical certification if their stated gender does not match their other identification documents.
“With this action, I express our enduring commitment to the L.G.B.T.Q.I.+ community today and moving forward,” Mr. Blinken said in the statement.
The move fulfills a campaign promise by President Biden, who has raised concerns that without documented proof of their self-identified gender, transgender and nonbinary people risk being denied employment, housing and other benefits, including the right to vote.
Mr. Blinken said the new policy follows other countries that have taken similar steps — including Canada, Australia, Argentina, Nepal and New Zealand — to in part align with foreign allies and partners.
Until Wednesday, the State Department had required a doctor’s certificate stating that a passport applicant had either transitioned, or was in the process, to change their gender on official consular documents. A spokesman said that rule was no longer in effect.
Last month, the State Department reversed another policy that had disproportionally impacted L.G.B.T.Q. families, and granted U.S. citizenship to babies born abroad to married couples with at least one American parent — no matter which parent was biologically related to the child.
That policy, a victory for same-sex couples, effectively guaranteed that American and binational couples who use assisted reproductive technology to give birth overseas — such as surrogates or sperm donations — can pass along citizenship to their children.
Three years ago, the State Department under former President Donald J. Trump was not convinced that the United States should officially proclaim the Rohingya to be victims of genocide and crimes against humanity, despite a 15,000-page report from American investigators that documented survivors’ accounts of gang rapes, crucifixions, mutilations and other atrocities committed in 2017 against the ethnic Muslim minority group in Myanmar.
But now that the military, the Tatmadaw, has overthrown Myanmar’s civilian government, current and former American officials and human rights activists are demanding that President Biden do what the Trump administration would not: formally hold the country’s military accountable for genocide and compel international protection of the Rohingya.
“The same military leaders who orchestrated atrocities against the Rohingya have seized power in a violent coup against the elected government,” Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, told Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken at a Senate hearing in early June.
Mr. Markey asked when the State Department would decide whether the atrocities amounted to genocide, and though Mr. Blinken described a “very much actively ongoing” review, he would not predict when it might be resolved.
Mr. Biden has made fostering democracy and protecting human rights pillars of his foreign policy, and in April went so far as to declare century-old atrocities committed against Armenians by the Ottoman Empire as genocide.
But Mr. Biden has stopped short of a genocide designation on behalf of the Rohingya because of a continuing internal debate that has left the administration torn over what impact it would have and how forcefully the United States should be engaged in the protracted conflict between the Tatmadaw and Myanmar’s citizens, according to three people familiar with the discussions.
The 2018 report detailing the attacks against the Rohingya left little doubt to investigators hired by the State Department that the Tatmadaw had committed genocide and crimes against humanity, but it conspicuously did not conclude that Myanmar’s military had committed genocide or crimes against humanity.
A spokeswoman for the State Department declined to comment when asked why those findings had failed to convince diplomats that genocide had been committed, calling it a decision made by the Trump administration.
Legal experts clashed on Wednesday over the wisdom of proposals to reduce the Supreme Court’s power to strike down democratically enacted laws, as President Biden’s commission on judicial branch overhauls held its first public hearing with witnesses.
But they spent limited time on the highest-profile idea associated with the panel — the push by some liberals to expand the Supreme Court, in response to Republican hardball moves that have left it with a 6-to-3 conservative majority even though Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections.
While House Democrats have introduced a bill that would add four seats to the Supreme Court, it stands scant chance of being enacted under present political conditions.
Instead, the hearing largely focused on other ideas. In particular, the witnesses extensively debated ideas for limiting the court’s power of judicial review — such as by stripping its jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to particular laws, requiring a supermajority vote of the justices to strike down an act of Congress, or giving lawmakers the power to override rulings invalidating statutes.
Nikolas Bowie, a Harvard Law School professor, denounced the power of the Supreme Court to strike down laws enacted by Congress as an “antidemocratic superweapon,” citing a 2012 ruling that hobbled Congress’s expansion of Medicaid coverage to millions of people, and one in 2013 that struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act that had protected minority voters in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination.
But Noah Feldman, another Harvard Law professor, warned against reducing the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, arguing that “judicial review is counter-majoritarian,” though he acknowledged that the court had sometimes issued bad decisions.
A few witnesses addressed court expansion, generally either arguing that it would delegitimize the court and inevitably lead to further expansions by Republicans, or portraying it as a “break glass” measure of last resort to deal with a hypothetical court that is consistently out of step with overwhelming popular opinion.
Among the ideas the witnesses engaged with more deeply: whether to change how the court selects which cases to hear in order to address the plummeting number it has decided in recent years, whether to reduce its ability to decide major legal issues without full briefings and arguments, and whether to replace lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices with term limits.
The capital was just beginning to quiet down for the summer when the buzz over the books began: Several seeking to explain the final year of Donald J. Trump’s presidency are landing so closely together over the next month that publishers have hastily changed publication dates to avoid mid-scoop collisions.
It’s enough to give an author nightmares.
“I literally just wake up every day waiting to find out that someone else has jumped in front of us, and some book that I had no idea was coming is going to be announced,” Michael C. Bender, the author of “Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost,” said in an interview.
Really, it is not the most unfounded fear. Mr. Bender is a reporter for The Wall Street Journal. “Frankly,” his first book, will be published on July 13. But he fast-tracked its publication, originally slated for August, after his publisher snooped on Amazon and uncovered the release dates of two other Trump-related books: “Landslide: The Final Days of the Trump Presidency,” by Michael Wolff, and “I Alone Can Fix It: Donald J. Trump’s Catastrophic Final Year,” by Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters at The Washington Post.
What has ensued is a war of excerpts among writers who are realizing their juiciest material may not hold. Twitter is now strewn with the most unsettling moments from Mr. Trump’s last year in office. Vividly reported snapshots of a monumental year in American history are proliferating like cicada shells on city pavement.
Amazon demanded on Wednesday that Lina Khan, the new chair of the Federal Trade Commission and an avowed critic of the company, recuse herself from any antitrust investigation into the e-commerce giant.
The company argued in a 25-page petition to the F.T.C. that Ms. Kahn could not be impartial in antitrust matters involving the company because she had been intensely critical of Amazon as a scholar and writer and because she had worked on the staff of a congressional investigation of the company.
“At a minimum, this record creates the appearance that the F.T.C., under Chair Khan’s leadership, would not be a neutral and impartial evaluator of the evidence developed in any antitrust investigation against Amazon or in deciding whether to bring enforcement actions against the company,” the company said in the filing.
Amazon said Ms. Khan should be recused from “at least all of the current antitrust investigations of Amazon of which the commission has notified Amazon.” The company is the subject of an F.T.C. inquiry, as well as investigations by state attorneys general.
A spokeswoman for the F.T.C., Lindsay Kryzak, declined to comment on the petition.
The petition shows how the major tech companies are trying to defang and discredit efforts by the Biden administration and lawmakers to regulate the industry. They have lobbied against bills that would ban some of their business practices, supported outside advocacy groups that defend their position and hired scores of lawyers to fend off investigations.
She told lawmakers at her April confirmation hearing that she saw a “whole range of potential risks” around the companies and signaled that she intended to try to address those risks while at the agency.
Amazon said that if Ms. Khan played a role in antitrust investigations of Amazon, it would violate federal ethics rules and the firm’s right to due process.
The company attached a statement from Thomas D. Morgan, a George Washington University law professor emeritus, supporting its position. Mr. Morgan said Amazon had paid him to provide his opinion.
Until the pandemic shuttered all of its productions, “Hamilton” was making a lot of money: It has played to full houses since it opened in 2015, and on Broadway it has been seen by 2.6 million people and grossed $650 million.
So why is the show getting $30 million in relief from the federal government, with the possibility of another $20 million coming down the road?
The answer is that, before the pandemic, “Hamilton” had five separately incorporated productions running in the United States — one on Broadway and four on tour — and, under the rules set up for the government’s Shuttered Venue Operators Grant program, which provides pandemic relief for the culture sector and live-event businesses, each was eligible for $10 million to help make up for lost revenue.
“Remember when Chrysler and GM were about to go bankrupt? In the same way that the federal government came in to bail out auto companies, it’s doing the same thing for all of show business with this legislation,” said the show’s lead producer, Jeffrey Seller. “It’s returning us to health and it’s protecting the well-being of our employees.”
Seller said that none of the money would go to the show’s producers (including him) or its investors, and none would be used as royalties for artists (including the show’s creator, Lin-Manuel Miranda).
Instead, he said, the money will be used to remount the shuttered productions, and to reimburse the productions for pandemic-related expenses.
The rollout of the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant initiative, a $16 billion federal aid program designed to help get cultural organizations back on their feet after the pandemic forced many to close, has been plagued by delays and confusion. But the Small Business Administration, which is administering the program, has begun announcing grant recipients, and there are indications that Broadway and its affiliated businesses could fare well.
Rushing to help Afghans who face retribution for working alongside American troops in their home country, the House voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to speed up the process that would allow them to immigrate to the United States.
With the American military in the final phases of withdrawing from Afghanistan after 20 years of war, more than 18,000 Afghans who have worked for the United States as interpreters, drivers, engineers, security guards and embassy clerks are stuck in a bureaucratic morass after applying for Special Immigrant Visas, available to people who face threats because of work for the U.S. government.
“I can say with confidence that I might not be here today had it not been for these men and women,” said Representative Jason Crow, Democrat of Colorado and a former Army Ranger who is the lead sponsor of the bill.
The measure, passed 366 to 46, would waive a requirement for applicants to undergo medical examinations in Afghanistan before qualifying, instead allowing them to do so after entering the United States. The first in a series of bipartisan bills intended to smooth the visa process, it aims to shorten the long waiting period, which can be as long as six or seven years for some applicants.
Mr. Crow said waiving the medical examination requirement would save the average applicant about a month on processing the visa. The bill requires that applicants complete their examinations within 30 days of arriving in the United States.
“In combat and in a war zone, every hour matters,” Mr. Crow said. “A month will save many, many lives.”
Since 2014, the nonprofit No One Left Behind has tracked the killings of more than 300 translators or their family members, many of whom died while waiting for their visas to be processed, according to James Miervaldis, the group’s chairman and an Army Reserve noncommissioned officer.
“It is a life and death situation,” said Representative Brad Wenstrup, Republican of Ohio. “It’ll be a black eye on the United States if we don’t do everything in our power to protect these allies.”
The House voted on Tuesday to remove statues honoring Confederate and other white supremacist leaders from public display at the United States Capitol, renewing an effort to rid the seat of American democracy of symbols of rebellion and racism.
The chamber voted 285 to 120 to approve the legislation, which aims to banish the likenesses of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, Jefferson Davis and roughly a dozen other figures associated with the Confederacy or white supremacist causes. Sixty-seven Republicans, including the party’s top leader, joined every Democrat in support of the changes, but a majority of the party stood against it.
“We can’t change history, but we can certainly make it clear that which we honor and that which we do not honor,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, who helped write the bill. “Symbols of hate and division have no place in the halls of Congress.”
The legislation will now go to the Senate, where Democrats have vowed to use their narrow majority to try to advance it.
The vote marked the latest round in a yearslong debate on Capitol Hill and across the country over the role of Confederate statues and symbols in public spaces, and the implications of removing them. Proponents of replacing the monuments with new ones commemorating the national struggle for equal rights have notched steady progress.
Among the likenesses targeted for removal is the bust of Chief Justice Taney, who as the leader of the Supreme Court in 1857 delivered the landmark Dred Scott v. Sandford decision denying the rights of citizenship to people of African descent. The legislation calls for Taney’s bust to be replaced with one of fellow Marylander Thurgood Marshall, the first Black Supreme Court justice.
The bill also specifically singles out for removal statues of Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, president of the Confederate States of America, and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, the former vice president and leader of the Senate’s pro-slavery faction.
The statues were selected and donated by states to the Capitol. Several states have already voluntarily taken steps to remove and replace some of them.
Conservatives decried the bill as an attempt to “whitewash” history or deprive states of their ability to choose what figures they want to see honored in the Capitol. Yet many of the Republican arguments against the measure on Tuesday focused on complaints about the removal process Democrats had proposed, not their goal.
“It would mean a whole lot more to this body, as well as the American people, if the states who originally put those statues in here were the ones who now ask that they would be removed,” said Representative Barry Loudermilk, Republican of Georgia.
Waiting For A Big SCOOP