connection with engineers. six to 12 inches of movement from a large column from the structure that could fall and cause damage to the support columns and garage area. slight movement in the concrete slabs on the south side of the structure near the north and south corner of the building. immediate adjacent to the south side of the structure. structural engineers and other subject matter experts to work on continued search and rescue operations. >> thank you, chief. for spanish, miami-dade fire rescue director of communications. [ speaking foreign language ]

>> you have been listening to officials in florida giving an update, significant one that now, as we heard moments ago,

has been paused essentially because of concerns about the structure. you heard one of the officials there talking about some movement of the debris pile essentially. this has been one of the issues that's been in place the last seven days, the concern about the safety of rescuers and first responders on the scene. we'll continue to monitor what we are watching here. you hear officials there. we are also following supreme court. the question here in front of

the justices is whether they would strike down or uphold these two restrict of voting laws in a. these could have significant implications. what are you hearing? >> no surprise that the supreme court has upheld both provisions of the voting law. even the biden administration said under reading of the section two of the voting rights act these two provisions were illegal under the act. the question is, what did the court do to what's left of the voting rights act? this is a 6-3 ruling. this is a total split by ideology. the six conservatives, three liberals on the other side. justice elena kagan writing for the dissenters says the court has weakened voting rights and wonders what the impact will be on these other states, some who have restricted access to vote that were enacted after the last

presidential election. it will take us a while to get into the weeds to see what the real test is. that's the essence of this decision, but not a surprise that court upheld both those arizona provisions on what they call ballot harvesting and votes in the wrong district. >> it seemed like the standard or this test as it related more broadly to the voting rights act. i wonder, tom -- i know we're still reading through this decision that's come out of the last three minutes here but, tom, the implications of that potentially here nationally. is tom goldstein still with us? >> oh, sorry, yes. >> rules that involve limitations on the time for voting, how far you have to travel for voting and compliance with voting rules are so

inherent to how we vote in the united states that they're just immune from scrutiny under section two of the voting rights act. and that's the big concern of the dissent. even when those rules have big effects on the basis of race, on hispanics, african-americans, then they cannot be challenged under the voting rights act. and that's the major change in the law today. melissa, i wonder how you read the decision coming in. and i want to check with our producers, if we know mo w.h.o. decided what. i want to get a graphic up here. >> justice samuel alito said fractures between the conservatives and liberals.

the time, place or manner of how one votes is immune from scrutiny under section two of the voting rights act really just hobbled what was left of that landmark civil rights legislation. the states did not have to go to the department of justice to have laws vetted before they went into effect. this was the last remaining feature with teeth of that part of the voting rights act that would allow them to challenge voting right restrictions. >> pete, can you talk about what this means? there's been a lot of discussion and we covered awe lot on this show state legislatures putting in place laws that would restrict voting rights in states around the country. did you see any of bearing on

that outside of arizona? >> sure but there are two ways to attack these voting lieus. one is the statute, which is the voting rights act. the second is the constitutional treatment, equal treatment, equal process, not discriminating. if you look at, for example, the justice department's recent lawsuit in georgia it makes both statutory and constitutional claims. there are still parts of section two. of course, a lot of these will be fact-bound questions in these state laws. so, you know, it certainly is not good news for the people who are challenging these statute, but it's not the end of the road. >> natasha, your reaction this morning? >> it's very disturbing, disappointing. the bottom line is we're seeing the voting rights act that was

passed because people had to actually force it to get passed in 1965. so the two provisions that give teeth to the voting rights act were section 5 and section 2. section 2 is the premise in which in what we're seeing right now that the doj is going to sue georgia. what is the point of the law where we're focusing on preserving the culture that many folks, many of the indigenous community in arizona, they have post office boxes. they're not in reservations, where they are located. look at the economic disparity between that community. the extremely disheartening, disappointing. i'm not quite surprised, what

was interesting to me was in the actual oral argument you had the state saying this -- if we allow this to happen, this gives an advantage of the democrats. the bottom line is that i think this is the case that beyond the partisanship even though it was the dnc that brought this case, it's really around equal and adequate access to the ballot and we know some communities have a different set of barriers. i think the supreme court should be expanding access to voters so we have free and open access to voting. it is disconcerting. >> melissa, would you characterize this as a gutting of the voting rights act? >> i would, at least what was left of it. pete is exactly right. there's two ways to challenge voting restrictions, under the constitution and under this statute. those challenges are hard under the constitution.

you have to show there was disparate impact against minority voters but also intent to stop voters from going to the polls to stop those votes. very hard prove. the court has essentially done it's important that constitutional standard for discriminatory intent into the voting rights act. it notes that not only are these kinds of laws immune from the section two of the voting rights act but also there is no discriminatory intent here, no clear intent to spress the votes of mierpt voters. that just means it's going to be hard to pursue these claims statutorily and constitutionally. >> i want reset for our viewers here for a moment. we are juggling several breaking news stories on the air right now. the big one we're talking about at the moment, coming out of the supreme court, the 6-3 decision that rules against democrats and key voting rights case out of arizona.

you can see on screen we have that graphic. the justices who decided in favor, he three of the more liberal justices dissenting in this instance. oral arguments had seemed to indicate it was going to be tough to get five justices to rule in favor of the dnc. this is the last day of the supreme court term. they had another case, another one that is likely to be told out. i'm being told in my ear as we speak that we have that case. that's on the question of whether charities should have to disclose donors. i think pete williams is back with us. i don't know if you've had a chaps to even look through this yet. there you are. what do we know about how justices ruled in other cases as we speak? >> not a big surprise of the outcome. the supreme court has struck down a california requirement that charities in the state had to disclose their biggest donors.

this was opposed by a conservative group led by the koch brothers saying this would dissuade, make people reluctant to contribute. the supreme court by a vote of 6-3 said yes, that's right. this is not a requirement that can be upheld under the first amendment. freedom of association. you know, back in the '5 0s, i think it was, the supreme court took a look at a similar law that required the naacp to make a list of its donors public. and the supreme court struck that down. and by similar logic, it's striking down this california requirement. the one question here, and again the vote was 6-3, conservative/liberals. the one thing -- two things about this case that were interesting. first of all, there was an unusual coalition of groups that oppose this california law. not nearly the conservative groups that brought the challenge in the first place back by the chamber of commerce and other conservative groups

but also by a bunch of liberal groups. and so there was a fairly wide opposition to it. a lot of groups saying they were equally concerned that this requirement would chill contributors. the disclosure was supposed to be secret. it was supposed to be given to the state. the state needed the data in order to look for potential fraud. at one time, one of these lists did leak out. and that was the concern here, is that the state wasn't being very careful with the data. the lurks issue was whether it would begin to set the pattern for weakening the laws for political campaigns or people who back referendums to get issues on the ballot. that was the concern during oral argument. i'm trying to look for language where the court says don't worry about that. i haven't seen it yet.

>> i'll let you keep looking, pete. chief justice roberts wrote this decision. did you read anything into that? >> this was obviously a very big one and not surprising he assigned it to himself. not everyone signed on to every part of his opinion. even among conservatives there's a considerable agree of fracture in this opinion. the chief skrus has signed on to some but not all parts of the opinion that he has written. and some of the justices have signed on to parts of it with justice alito and justice thomas. >> one of the central questions, and we are still having you all read through this decision here, how this relates to the potential for changes in campaign finance, right? at least here in the political

world in washington, that's why this case was seen as so significant. are you gleaning any insight from what you've had a chaps to read so far on that front? >> the supreme court left that question to decide. the chief justice's opinion, which is often true, is narrower than it might have been than justice thomas, for example, in writing a dissent would have gone. justice thomas would have said all compelled disclosure laws are subject to scrutiny and very hard to up hold and the chief justice and the rest of the conservatives said we don't have to decide that here. what matters here is that california was gathering a ton of information and not using it to start investigations at all. and if it really wanted the information, it could have gotten it from subpoena by individual charitable organizations and they don't have to decide anything else here. the more liberal justices still thought that the california law was going to be -- was important enough to be sustained.

>> there had also been a question, as pete alluded to, the issue that, for example, some of this information had leaked. that came up in oral arguments, how you keep this information confidential. did the justices address that at all? >> yeah. they don't rely on that in particular. their view is that california doesn't have a good enough reason for taking the information at all. they're collecting a ton of information about these organizations but they weren't actually using it when they were trying to start investigations for fraud. and they could issue a subpoena to a particular group. the justices used the prospect of it being disclosed and leaked as a reason why you have to be concerned about collecting it in the first place. but it's not about leaks.

>> we were beginning to reset for the viewers here. it's important to do pause we have two fairly significant decisions. one of them relating to voting rights in arizona, t other charitable donations in california and campaign finance laws. in both of these instances you're seeing a 6-3 split with the more conservative justices siding against the more liberal wing of the supreme court. this arizona law was extremely closely watched given the landscape this is being decided in across the country. a number of legislators as we covered on this show and this network, putting into place conservative legislatures, laws that restrict voting rights in those particular states. there were questions about these arizona laws. one that did ban voting outside of your precinct. the other restricting who could

collect and drop off your absentee ballot, ballot harvesting, if you will. that's what this voting rights case centered on. a supreme court in a not all-together unexpected decision has sided with arizona in this instance and against democrats who have fought to challenge this. how does this affect other cases, especially given that legal observers believe that this, in large part, guts what's left of the voting rights act? how does this affect other cases and legal challenges around the country to states that are also bringing similar restrictive voting bills forward? >> not for the specifics of arizona but what it will mean

throughout the rest of the country. what the supreme court did today for the first time construing the section two of the voting rights act for cases involving states making it harder to register to vote, it significantly diluted the strength of section two, made it very difficult for plaintiffs to win. >> explain what section two is, rick. go ahead and lay this out in layman's terms. what is section two? >> section two, back in 1982, the supreme court -- back in 1982, congress re-enacted the voting rights act and said that if a law has a discriminatory result, discriminatory impact on voters of color, then that law violates the statute. and the supreme court has talked about what section two means in the context of redistricting but never until today when a state passes a law like a voter i.d. law? the dissenter said it's enough to show it's a racially discriminatory impact, enough to

show that the law makes it harder for minorities to be able to vote. the supreme court majority today said no, tas a much higher standard. if it's just a usual burden of voting and the state can assert some interest in, say, preventing voter fraud or some other interest, the thumb is on the scale to favor the state. it will be very hard for minority plaintiffs to be able to prove it's actually a violation of section two. that means across the country as all of these new restrictive laws are challenged, they'll have a much harder time being successful than they were before the supreme court ruled today. >> there is -- justice elena kagan wrote a dissent that is quite strong in its language. i don't know if we've been able to make a graphic this quickly because it's all breaking in the last 11 minutes here. today, the court undermines section two and the right it provides. justice kagan writing the majority fears that it is too

radical, embattle too many majority laws. limiting section two from multiple directions wherever it can, and i'm quoting justice kagan here. the majority gives a cramped reading to broad language and then uses that to uphold two election laws from arizona that discriminate against minority voters. that is -- she is making clear here, rick, where she stands on this. >> yeah, there's no question that the court had a much greater ability to protect minority voters than the opportunity it took. it's a very disappointing decision because it means we already had the supreme court in 2008 make it much harder to use the constitutional challenges to voting rules. in 2008 the supreme court upheld indiana's tough voter i.d. law. if the constitutional standard doesn't work under the 14th or 15th amendment protecting equal rights in voting at least there's the voting rights act. this case makes it much harder

to rely on that and you can see it coming across through the justices on supreme court. >> we have to remind ours this is something that has a years' long timeline. it did not come up just this summer. in 2016 sempl arms of the dnc sued arizona over voter access. following year, district court for the destruct of arizona denied the dnc's petition. the year after that, you had the ninth circuit court of appeals affirming the district court's ruling and this last march it was argued before the supreme court. it's stretched back several years but today, jane, seems particularly timely given the area of reporting that you cover in your beat as it relates to voting rights around the country. >> absolutely. we have 22 states that have enacted restrictive voting laws this year. i would even take it farther back from 2016 and take back to the shelby ruling eight years ago, which is why advocates have started using, and democrats

here, sort of using section two to try to go after these specific laws. this provision was mostly used for, you know, partisan gerrymandering or racial gerrymandering issues. because shelby got section five, because there's one less tool for advocates, they turn to this provision and started trying to use it to stop discriminatory laws that they saw. 22 different states. this is a very, very impactful decision. and i can't really overstate how many fewer tools advocates have today versus maybe two weeks ago when they thought maybe they'll get federal legislation. maybe we're going to not have a ruling like this. voting rights advocates have been a little shy to bring a section two case like this for fear of this exact ruling. for fear of a gutting from the supreme court like this. democrats have brought this one. voting rights advocates may be more cautious on using this and seeing what happens. >> yeah. jane, based on your reporting

and, do you believe today's ruling puts more precious on congress to enact voting rights that currently has seemed to be stalled? >> absolutely. advocates say there's no plan b for these restrictive laws. there's so many. and i think we saw ag garland know that this ruling may be coming by saying he's going to try to prove discriminatory intent in that georgia law. for states looking at this ruling they're saying we want to prevent voter fraud and our voters don't have confidence in elections, in large part, because donald trump spent the entire last year saying the election was stolen from him. they say we have a totally valid reason to put these laws on the books. this is going to make it so very hard to prove that there is an issue with restrictive laws that absolutely make it harder for certain people to vote. >> so, melissa, given the way that this opinion has been written, and based on what you've been able to read from it the last 15 minutes or so, can

you talk about what legal resource some of these voting rights advocates might have now in pursuing challenges in other areas, given the way that the supreme court has written this decision? what are the -- where do you see openings or opportunities for them to potentially be successful in the legal realm here? >> well, one of the things that the court has left open in this opinion, which again i think is a pretty severe move to the right on voting rights, but one of the things that's left open is the possibility of voting rights laws that are enacted with a discriminatory purpose in mind. now, again, this is so much harder to prove. >> i was going to say, how do you -- how do you prove it? isn't that the issue? isn't that something -- justices brought that up in oral arguments. how do you prove that the intent was to discriminate for these voting restriction laws in place? >> that's the million dollar question. much more of this kind of work is going to be much more subtle

than it was in the jim crow era. i think this really is a gutting of this landmark civil rights legislation. as rick said earlier, this accompanies a severe limitation on constitutional challenges that occurred in 2008 and another voting rights case that came out of indiana. two major coconduits. the next step is to put this in congress' court to enact legislation that will do more to protect voter rights. we've seen some movement on that front but haven't seen a bill get over the finish line. i think that's where everyone will be looking now across the street from the court to congress. >> lay out that thread that melissa is laying out here and the ownness and possession on congress now. do you see this changing any minds in congress at the capitol behind me here as it relates to

enacting voting legislation because of what happened at the court today? >> people will weasle and ration. we're seeing politicalization of the courts. donald trump who has been openly attacking voting rights particularly of african-american and minority voters actually selected and put those two members on the court. we have to really recognize that in order for us to really protect voting rights, we have to literally hold congress accountable. we need desperately more than ever -- i think there's a sense of urgency now with section five and now section two being weakened that the voting rights act as it currently stands will not provide the protection we've been seeing communities of color. we have to for the people act,

the advancement act and advocates like myself and other organizations are gearing up to force and enforce this issue. it's not enough. we know it's not enough. we're seeing -- it's interesting because even in this ruling, the ninth circuit, it was clear that it had a disproportional impact on the indigenous community, communities of color. yet we saw the court have this ruling. we had to see something stronger to protect the rights of minorities in this nation. >> time thoughts to you, melissa? >> i think that's right. we often see the courts and congress engaged in some dialogue, explicitly or implicitly. we have the court shutting down one avenue for protecting voting rights and that goes to congress by perhaps opening up another robust avenue. >> melissa murray, latosha

brown. thanks to all of you. later on in the show, continuing this developing news out of the supreme court. it is significant this morning. you are watching it unfold live right here on msnbc reports. you are also watching unfold other breaking news. just from the top of the hour. you heard it here, search and rescue in surfside, florida, the operation paused right now out of concerns of how stable the collapsed building actually was. it comes as president biden is in miami. in a matter of moments we may see him. he's getting a briefing from miami officials, from the florida governor, ron desantis. it's been exactly one week since the collapse. current numbers now, 18 people confirmed dead, 145 people still unaccounted for. one of the big questions, when does the search and rescue turn to a recovery with time slipping away? morgan chesky from surfside, monica albaa from the white house. this is a very active and developing scene. at any point we may see

president biden pop up. we'll bring that to you when that happens. forgive me, both of you, if that happens. morgan, moments ago we heard the operation is on hold at the moment and pretty strong words from the officials on scene about their concern about safety for these first responders given these very small shifts they've been seeing. i believe, morgan, it was in some of the debris pile in the area sort of underneath where they're working, right? >> yeah. hallie, you have instability within the actual debris problem and one of the problems right now, the front side of champlain towers south still left standing. the fire marshal was concerned part of the debris may be propping up that entire side of the building and that was definitely a concern as they dug deeper into the rubble, searching for any signs of life. they were keeping a very close eye on how stable it was on top of the fact that they're also searching millions and millions

of pounds of concrete piled precariously on top of one another. the halt is stopped for now. we're also hearing that firefighters said they heard a female voice inside the rubble in the hours following this collapse and while they worked their way towards it for several hours, the calls eventually stopped. this was on the morning of the collapse, which was now a week ago. so, here we are, now in day eight. that search has halted. we have 400 search and rescue members essentially staying on site. now standing still, awaiting for word to go back in. they've been working in 12-hour shifts. and the families, meanwhile, only being held a short distance away from here. they had been getting breakings every few hours the past week. we haven't heard from them following this halt but you have to imagine the agony that has been multiplied as a result of this news. they were taken to the site several days ago for a chance to witness the massive operation

under way. right now, it goes back to a horrible waiting game. we know that overnight that death toll rose to 18, included in that count, a 4-year-old and 10-year-old girl, members of the guada family. the father had will be been confirmed killed in that. but this only goes to show that right now there is a lot of pain in this community and not a lot of answers. hallie? >> morgan, i know you haven't had a chance to talk to any family members about it this hold on the operations. have you gotten a sense of president biden's trip to florida -- just landing there now, actually, looking at my watch just before we went on air. what's the impact on them? >> reporter: encouraged by the fact that the president is making their shift here. usually they're encouraged they could finally have much-needed

resources. in this case they have essentially all the resources they need. they have eight urban search and rescue units on scene going through that pile. in perspective for hurricane sally when it hit the coast last year, they had two, and they were spread out over an entire area of the coastline. we have eight units essentially in a four-block radius that have been working nonstop on top of that pile. i'm hearing from folks that they look forward to hearing from the president because he has that reputation of being a consoler in chief and there has been so much pain here over the last week without any answers and 145 people still missing. >> yeah. >> somewhere in that rubble. >> morgan, i don't want to cut you off. monica, i don't want to not get to you. more breaking news this hour. it is a pile-on. house speaker nancy pelosi is speaking after that vote to create a january 6th select committee. she may be announcing, it

appears to be, members of that committee. let's listen. >> oversight committee, a major committee of jurisdiction. the committee on oversight, also on the judiciary committee, which has standing on all of this. and then i'm proud to announce that elaine captain of the ship, retired commander, oh, my gosh, and member of the armed services committee, her interest in this is longstanding in the congress. she is also a member of the homeland security committee. >> i just wanted to really thank -- bill? it's really important for you all to know what our purpose is

for this. testimony from the department of homeland security about concerns that are out there, all these institutions talking about -- well, i hate to even go there but in terms of what they had said, in terms of white supremacy, anti-semitism, homophobia. all these attitudes that have contributed to what happened on january 6th.

establish the purpose of what we are setting out to do, to make sure that this never happens again. i just put out a press release so you have the names of the members on the committee. again it was our hope we could have done this with a bipartisan outside commission, maybe one day that will be possible. it took 14 1/2 months for the 9/11 commission to be signed into law. perhaps this is on the horizon. in the meantime then and meantime now it will be a congressional investigation. then i happened to be co-chair of that investigation bipartisan and bicameral. it may be hard to do bicameral as they limit what we can do on

their side. it enables you to go to the next step. the next step has always been to seek and to find the truth. we want to do so in the most patriotic and nonpartisan way so the american people have confidence in the results. now it's my pleasure to yield and, as i announce the chairmanship of this committee to be chairman benny thompson, domestic terrorism. we're very honored that he has agreed to serve as chair of that committee. >> thank you very much, madam speaker. i thank you to your steadfast commitment to getting behind the

truth of the january 6th dochlesque terrorist attack on the capitol. to try to stop congress from carrying out our constitutional duties to certify a presidential election. over the last six months at every turn you've opinion laser focused on doing whatever it takes to get to the bottom to deliver the truth to the american people. you met republicans more than halfway in an effort to stand up in a bipartisan, independent commission. the reason i say that, i participated in negotiating what was to be negotiated and you did a good job. i thought from the standpoint it should have been approved. we passed it in the house, unfortunately. we could not get the senate to do likewise.

approval in the house by doing so. and membership behind me. we do our job, according to the oath we took as members of congress. more importantly, we have to get to the bottom of finding out all the things that went wrong on january 6th. i look forward to working with the members of the select committee, both democrats and republicans i look forward to coming up with the causes and

effect. it will come in due time. the product will be a product based on investigation, based on what those investigations bring forward and there's nothing in this review that won't be brought out in the end. thank you. >> thank you so much. any questions? no questions? or we anticipated them all. yes, sir? >> house minority leader mccarthy -- >> i'm not responding. we're making our presentation here. go ask him about what he says, okay? >> accept your appointment to the committee. >> i'm sorry, what? >> mccarthy said the committee assignments -- >> no, that's a matter for the republican caucus.

we are full of responsibility and duty and patriotism and almost joy as we go into the fourth of july weekend as we observe the birth of our nation, that we are committed to doing something that honors the vision of our founders. it's going to be a high level. it's not going to be political and i'm not going to get into discussion of what goes on in the republican caucus. >> republican liz cheney said you would appoint her. can you tell us what that conversation was like, why she said yes, what you asked of her? >> good question. it resembled congresswoman

cheney's public comments. it's what is in the bill as to what our purpose is. our purpose is not any phone call that mccarthy made or something like that. it's about protecting our country from negative forces that provoked that attack on the capitol. >> earlier this week, congresswoman omar ilhan was on -- >> let's stick with this. i'm sure they would be happy to answer any questions you have. what do you have today? >> i wanted to ask if you would like to see the pre testify before the committee and is there any chance that the committee will subpoena him? >> the committee will make its decisions and we look forward to

the republicans making their decisions. >> the importance of mccarthy's conversations with president trump -- >> i'm not going into that now. the committee will establish working with staff what the we're not having that discussion right now in this room. jake? >> how do you anticipate getting started? are you going to wait for mckarth toy choose his people or -- >> we hope they would choose them expeditiously. a quorum. let me go back to the purpose. your presentation this morning reminded me that we have to remind people what the purpose of this is.

on january 6th, 2021, was one of the darkest days of our democracy during which insurrectionists tamted to impede congress' constitutional mandate to a presidential election. this is something that's very important to all of our members including, i might be able to say, because she said it publicly, congresswoman cheney, that peaceful transfer of power. it a hallmark of democracy. and then the department of homeland security issued on january 7th a bulletin calling our attention the need act so this doesn't happen again because there are approximate perceived grievances viewed by false narratives could continue to mobilize or insight to

committee violence. and then, of course, what i referenced from the fbi t goes on and on. it's really important. >> do you want to say anything about house administration? >> house administration committee has held a series of hearings primarily with the inspector generals looking at deficiencies in the management of the capitol police. unfortunately we found many. but that's not about what spurred the attack. that's about the response. the fact that there were deficiencies in the management of the capitol police didn't cause the riot. we will make sure that the interim steps to be more safe,

what happened here, what caused a mob of americans to think somehow they were supporting the con contusion when they tried to disrupt the constitutional process of counting the electoral college votes, who paid for it, who organized it? we need to find that out in order to keep the country safe. >> the capitol police saved our lives. they enabled us to return so that we could honor our constitutional responsibility prescribed in the constitution as january 6th not just any day as the republicans describe it, normal tort day in the capitol. no. it was a date described in the constitution. they came to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. how could the capitol police ever suspect that the president of the united states would

incite an insurrection? we want to support them and shore up any shortcomings not only personally but physically for the capitol. intelligence has been a very important part of all of this. mr. schiff, did you have something you wanted to say? >> thank you, madam speaker. we know that there was intelligence collected prior to the attack and intelligence that was not collected that was available to help law enforcement identify the danger to the capitol that day. why that intelligence wasn't gathered, whether the intelligence that was gathered was appropriately shared, whether that intelligence was acted upon.

it certainly is my hope and expectation with the specific focus on the events of january 6th with the staff committee why didn't we see this coming is this what are the appropriate mechanisms that law enforcement can use to it's my hope we can get those answers and put additional pressure as needed on the agencies to be forth coming with that information so we could prepare for the future. >> thank you, mr. schiff. mr. agolar serves on

appropriations committee and house administration committee. >> thank you, madam speaker. i wanted to underscore that the focus of this is on seeking the truth. the focus is on making sure that the american public understands the threat to democracy that took the focus is making sure that americans understand. some of them permanently that day. five people lost their lives. staffers were bar cased here in the capitol. how can we protect this going forward. i look forward to chairman tompgs's leadership. >> i want them to self introduce so you hear more from them than

from me. >> i'm congresswoman stephanie murphy and i fled a country where political violence is how transitions were made. and i never lived a day in this country where i have not been proud to live in the democracies. is it broke my heart to be in this building and see the kind of political violence that occurred like the country i fled, happening here in our country. so i look toward to fulfilling my role on the committee, how we can secure the citadel of

democracy here at this capital. thank you. i'm so proud of stephanie murphy's patriotism. she came as a boat baby from vietnam. and she is always talked about how much her family appreciated america. and she as, of course, served our country very well in the department of defense now in the congress of the united states. but her story is one that is the american dream many times over. now i want to yield on the judiciary house administration and core of the committee on oversight. >> thank you very much, madame speaker. the oversight committee has been

conducting for several violent white supremacy. they declared domestic violence extremism a number one threat in the country. we saw that threat explode in front of us on january the 6th. so the impeachment trial of donald trump determined, i think by robust bipartisan majorities that incited the violence on january 6th. but we need to figure out who organized the violence. how did they organize it, and why did they organize is. what were the purposes of the difference critical actors. that's why this living and as yet unborn. we need to defend our democracy

with everything we got. so it is our ability to serve. thank you, madame speaker. >> there is a few in the congress. >> the first time that i took the oath to protect and defend, i was 17 years old entering the naval academy. i never thought they woulding here serving in this capacity. and you know like all of my colleagues here said, we have to get to the bottom of this. it can't be a partisan thing. i think back to my time with

many deployments, and we're simultaneously launching strikes against terrorist targets. but we say it is not about partisanship. i hope that this committee can come together. these are answers that the american people need and deserve. and getting to the bottom of is is really important. so thank you to madame speaker for appointing me. >> thank you so much. i have been informed that we have four minutes left. that is part of our legislation. i just wanted to say how proud i

am of this select committee. i'm glad that it will be bipartisan from the start we're proud that lynn, excuse me, liz cheney made the public statements she made and that she agreed to use the committee another time. she will say her why and her purpose. but she has spoken very clearly about the committee and that gives us great confidence. as go into the fourth of july with great pride in the fact that we will be closer to the truth because of the willingness of up a distinguished group to take this responsibility. thank you all very much.

>> big developing news from capitol hill here. nancy pelosi announcing who will be on that select committee. seven democrats, and one republican that she is appointing to that committee, congresswoman liz cheney who is not there because of an unrelated family matter, but you see she is one of the eight that nancy pelosi selected there had been speculation and i understand that we are just in my e-mail, garrett, just getting a statement in that she is honored, she says, and that congress is on ligated to conduct the most serious attacks. i'm paraphrasing some of it garrett but what happened on january 6th cannot happen again, and see says this collect

committee will fulfill it in a nonpartisan manner. this is after the house speaker announced that she will serve on this committee. on the other side of the isle kevin mccarthy says any republican that accepts an assignment like from nancy pelosi, they should be ready for all of the committee assignments. >> the cheney piece of this draws a lot of tension. it makes this committee make up bipartisan from the start. leader mccarthy could go suit the purposes just fine. she wants january 6th and trump

to be at the center of a fight about what the republican party is and what it stands for. now she has a platform to continue doing that. does he held vat her even further. we're going to hear from mccarthy in the next hour here. we have a lot of questions related to that. cheney will get a lot of oxygen on this but that is a committee full of heavy hitters. you have multiple impeachment managers, benny thompson is part of the intell chair. >> we will be watching for you

following up with house leader kevin mccar think near a little bit. we told you it would be a morning full of breaking news. chris jansing is picking up continuing coverage right now. good morning i am kris jansing in for craig melvin. we have breaking news, we have this, two big decisions in the last hour. including one on voting rights that challengers say makes it harder for my know forties to vote. president biden will meet with first responders and families later today. search efforts are on because due to drurl turns there. officials just updated us last

hour