| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
Pray for Dallas
00:15:19
|
||
|
unidentified
|
For ensuring, again, the able-bodied population, because that's the only population that they were talking about putting into this per capita cap. | |
| So, no, I don't think that that would be frugal or good for the overall administration of the program. | ||
| By the way, both guests are going to be with us for the hour. | ||
| If you want to ask them questions about this effort this week on the so-called reconciliation bill, what it does for various aspects of social programs: 202-748-8000 for Democrats, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8002 for Independents. | ||
| And if you want to text us your thoughts and questions, it's 202-748-8003. | ||
| There's more reporting requirements as far as what people are doing to gain Medicaid, more work requirements being proposed. | ||
| What do you think about those? | ||
| What ultimately does it do for those who get care, though? | ||
|
unidentified
|
And how could it affect those who get care? | |
| I mean, I do think that it is not an unduly burden to record. | ||
| We'll take you live now to the House for the last legislative work of the week. | ||
| Members are wrapping up National Police Week bills, considering measures to allow federal police to buy retired guns and to require a report from the Attorney General on attacks on law enforcement. | ||
| Live coverage here on C-SPAN. | ||
| The house will be in order. | ||
| The prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, Dr. John Cross, 1st Sarasota Baptist Church, Sarasota, Florida. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Would you join me in prayer? | |
| Heavenly Father, we thank you for your love, mercy, and grace in our lives. | ||
| You have blessed us far beyond our ability to understand. | ||
| Thank you for the gift of our great nation. | ||
| We are appreciative of the freedoms we enjoy. | ||
| We pray for the men and women who are serving to protect and preserve our freedom. | ||
| We pray for all of our elected officials and all those in authority. | ||
| Please give them your wisdom as they make decisions that impact so very many lives. | ||
| We desperately need you. | ||
| We know that our help is from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth. | ||
| We cling to you and every promise in your word. | ||
| Help us to walk in your ways, to obey your word. | ||
| May we act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. | ||
| We pray this in the name of Jesus Christ, our living hope. | ||
| Amen. | ||
| The chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House the approval thereof. | ||
| Pursuant to clause one of Rule One, the journal stands approved. | ||
| Pledge of Allegiance will be led by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Latimer. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty, and justice for all. | |
| Without objection, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Buchanan, is recognized for one minute. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | |
| I rise to recognize Dr. John Cross, who just delivered this morning's opening prayer. | ||
| John is a senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Sarasota and has been the pastor for many, many years. | ||
| John's committed his life to Christ in his childhood and ultimately decided to pursue a career in the ministry. | ||
| He's a proud graduate of Mercy University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Cemetery, where he earned his Master's of Divinity degree and his doctorate of ministry. | ||
| His leadership has extended beyond the local church, having served as the president of the Florida Baptist Convention Pastor Conference and President of the Florida Baptist State Convention. | ||
| John is married to Dawn, and together they have been blessed with five children, three son-in-laws, a daughter-in-law, and ten grandkids. | ||
| I deeply value his faith leadership in my life, in my family's life, and to our community, and I am grateful for his presence here today. | ||
| And with that, I yield back. | ||
| Gentleman yields back. | ||
| The chair will now entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. | ||
| For that purpose, what does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek recognition? | ||
| Mr. Speaker, we request unanimous consent to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. | ||
| Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, tens of thousands of law enforcement officers from across the country traveled to Washington, D.C. for National Police Week. | ||
| Established in 1962 through a joint resolution of Congress, National Police Week is a time for our nation to honor the courageous men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. | ||
| These officers gave their lives to protect our families, our neighborhoods, and our way of life. | ||
| Their legacy lives on in the communities they served and in the continued service of those who wear the badge today. | ||
| At a time when violent crime is rising and law enforcement officers face growing hostility, we must stand firmly behind those who risk their lives to uphold the law. | ||
| This is why I'm proud to co-sponsor legislation that honors fallen officers and strengthens protections for those who continue to serve. | ||
| To every officer who puts on a uniform each day, with courage and conviction, thank you. | ||
| And on behalf of a grateful nation, we salute you. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the bad question. | ||
| The gentleman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas seek recognition? | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. | ||
| Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to recognize a new chapter in public safety leadership for the city of Dallas. | ||
| On May 5th, Dallas officially welcomed two exceptional leaders, Daniel Camo as Chief of Police and Justin Ball as Chief of Fire and Rescue. | ||
| Chief Camo has over 30 years of law enforcement experience, including his recent role as special agent in charge of the DEA's Houston Field Division. | ||
| His leadership has been marked by intelligence-driven crime reduction and a collaborative approach to community policing. | ||
| Chief Ball, a nearly 30-year veteran of Dallas Fire and Rescue, has risen through every rank since joining the department in 1997. | ||
| His dedication and innovative leadership have been instrumental in advancing the department's mission to protect and serve our community. | ||
| These appointments reflect Dallas's commitment to public safety and community trust. | ||
| I commend City Manager Kimberly Tolbert for her thoughtful selection of these leaders. | ||
| To Chiefs Camo and Ball, thank you for your service. | ||
| I look forward to supporting your efforts here in Congress to help ensure the safety and well-being of all Dallas residents. | ||
| And I yield back. | ||
| General Miller yields back. | ||
| For what purpose gentlemen from North Carolina seek recognition? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. | |
| objection. | ||
| The gentleman is recognized for one minute. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I rise today during National Police Week to honor the brave men and women in law enforcement who've made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. | ||
| These officers stood on the front lines to protect our communities, uphold the rule of law, and defend the safety of our citizens, often at a great personal risk. | ||
| We remember their courage, their selflessness, and their unwavering commitment to service. | ||
| Behind each badge was a story, a family, and a legacy that will not be forgotten. | ||
| To the families who carry the burden of their loss, we offer our deepest gratitude and our heartfelt condolences. | ||
| Your loved ones are heroes, and their memory will live on in our prayers and in the freedoms they helped safeguard. | ||
| Let's continue to support all those who wear the badge and to honor those who gave everything to protect us. | ||
| With that, I thank you and I yield back. | ||
| Gentleman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose gentlemen from California seek recognition? | ||
| Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Maria Marcia Sanchez. | ||
| Maria was born in Aguaprieta, Mexico. | ||
| She then came to the United States in pursuit of the American dream. | ||
| She married Ignacio and settled down in my hometown of Anaheim to raise a family of seven children, including our own colleagues, Congresswoman Linda Sanchez and Loretta Sanchez. | ||
| Today, she remains the only mother in the country to have two daughters serving Congress. | ||
| Maria was a teacher who believed that education was the key to the middle class, and she was a role model for our community. | ||
| And in 2008, my alma mater Cal State Fullerton designated her as Outstanding Alumni. | ||
| Maria, you are a trailblazer for us. | ||
| Contributions to our community were tremendous. | ||
| You're always in the heart. | ||
| Thank you, Maria. | ||
| We'll never forget you. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I yield. | ||
| The gentleman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose gentlewoman from Oklahoma seek recognition? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I ask William's consent to address the House for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. | |
| Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | |
| I rise today in honor of National Police Week, which serves as a reminder to remember and memorialize law enforcement officers who have fallen in the line of duty. | ||
| During this week, I am reminded of a quote from Matthew chapter 5, verse 9. | ||
| Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall be called the children of God. | ||
| Our law enforcement officers put themselves in harm's way every day in the pursuit of justice and protection of the innocent. | ||
| They are the thin blue line that represents courage when faced with unbelievable chaos and uncertainty. | ||
| One of the greatest strengths of law enforcement is their ability to bridge gaps, to forge connections, and to build trust within our communities. | ||
| For our officers, stopping criminals, saving innocent lives, and helping our communities is more than a job. | ||
| It is a way of life. | ||
| Thank you for everything you do to protect and safeguard our communities. | ||
| With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield. | ||
| Gentlewoman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose? | ||
| The gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition. | ||
| Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, there is a catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza. | ||
| It is happening before our eyes. | ||
| Tons of food, medicine, water, shelter, and other urgent humanitarian aid remains blocked from entering Gaza by Israeli Prime Minister Netyahu. | ||
| The World Food Program and NGOs have been forced to close their programs or using the last of their dwindling supplies. | ||
| For the first time, lab technicians with the American Near East Refugee Aid Organization are detecting signs of starvation in the lab work of one-third of all blood and urine samples of their patients in Gaza. | ||
| Israeli officers charged with monitoring conditions inside of Gaza have told their commanders that it is on the brink of starvation. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, for too long, Congress has been complacent and complicit about the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza. | ||
| We need to speak out and demand the rapid, unimpeded, impartial, neutral, and independent delivery of humanitarian aid today. | ||
| Tomorrow may be too late. | ||
| And, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter additional materials into the record. | ||
| Without objection. | ||
| The gentleman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose, gentlemen from South Carolina, seek recognition? | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House one minute without takes 10 minutes. | ||
| The gentleman is recognized for one minute. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| Yesterday, President Donald Trump and His Highness Sheikh Taman bin Hamid Altani of Qatar signed an historic $1.2 trillion trade agreement, including the purchase of $96 billion of South Carolina-made 787 Boeing Dreamliners. | ||
| As the manufacturer home of 787 Dreamliners, this creates thousands of Boeing jobs in South Carolina and also creates jobs for 200 suppliers throughout the Palmetto State, including AGY of Aiken Zeus of Orangeburg and Prismium of Lexington. | ||
| Congratulations, Boeing President Kelly Oortburg and the Boeing team. | ||
| President Trump is delivering on his promise to bring back Made in America, promoting stability in the Middle East, liberating Syria. | ||
| In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. | ||
| Trump is reinstituting existing laws to protect American families with peace through strength, revealing War Criminal Putin lies. | ||
| And yesterday, Putin threatening Estonia with Russian overflights in the Baltic Sea, verified today by European parliamentarian Riharz Kohl of Latvia. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| The gentleman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose, gentleman from Texas, seek recognition? | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent to address the House for one minute advice semi-remark. | ||
| Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | |
| Mr. Speaker, this police week, I rise to honor four fallen heroes from the Harris County Sheriff's Office, whose names will soon be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. | ||
| Investigator John Kudu was a U.S. Army veteran and a 20-year member of the Sheriff's Office. | ||
|
Deputy McCrary's Legacy
00:13:17
|
||
| His wife said he made people feel seen. | ||
| Deputy Ronald Bates served 31 years with the Sheriff's Office. | ||
| His son Derek now proudly carries his badge as a deputy. | ||
| Deputy Brad Swedman spent 39 years in service, but his main job was simply being a daddy and a pawpaw. | ||
| Deputy Fernando Esqueda was just 28. | ||
| He was as good of a musician as he was a crime fighter. | ||
| These men were patriots. | ||
| They loved this country, and Texans are safer because of them. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I ask that they never be forgotten by this House and that we enter their stories into the record. | ||
| Thank you, and I yield back. | ||
| Gentlewoman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose, gentlemen from North Carolina, seek recognition? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to address the House for one minute to rise and extend my remarks. | |
| Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have repeated this phrase a lot lately. | ||
| Budgets are about priorities. | ||
| You know what really signals someone's priorities? | ||
| Their actions. | ||
| Just last week, we witnessed a group of elected officials storm an ICE facility demanding sympathy for illegal aliens who are violent gang members, rapists, and murderers. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, each of us are elected to represent our constituents and put American citizens first. | ||
| The idea that someone could take the oath and then storm through law enforcement officials simply boggles the mind. | ||
| If my colleagues want to talk about priorities, Mr. Speaker, here's one they should remember. | ||
| The safety of law-abiding Americans is more important than the demands of foreign criminals. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| Gentleman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose, gentlemen from New York, seek recognition? | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute and to advise and extend my remarks. | ||
| Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I rise to recognize the outstanding contributions made by At Home on the Sound to benefit senior citizen residents of Larchmont and Mamaronick. | ||
| Tonight they are celebrating their 15th anniversary with their crystal celebration. | ||
| I can't be there in person, but we are there in spirit. | ||
| At Home provides a support system to help seniors continue to enjoy a vibrant lifestyle as they age, able to remain in their homes and highly active. | ||
| At home volunteers and professionals deliver a monthly schedule of educational programs, active discussion groups, social gatherings, and the necessary transportation. | ||
| When I retire, not that long from now, I know exactly where I can go to learn how to paint, playbridge, Canasta, Mahjong, and a host of other recreations. | ||
| At Home on the Sound complements the already active senior recreation programs offered by the Village of Larchmont, the Village of Mamaronick, and the Town of Mamaronick, providing a complete menu of services and programs for those 60-plus years of age in our area. | ||
| Congratulations on 15 great years, and the best is yet to come. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I yield my time. | ||
| The gentleman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose, gentlemen from Colorado, seek recognition? | ||
| I ask for unanimous consent to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. | ||
| Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sergeant Olav Cheney of the Colorado Springs Police Department for his 35 years of service to our community. | ||
| I had the pleasure of taking Sergeant Cheney and his family last night on a capital tour, and a delightful family he has. | ||
| Sergeant Cheney also has served us in the United States Army. | ||
| He's become a recognized leader within the police department, and Sergeant Cheney helps lead the downtown area response team and the homeless outreach team, where he serves our vulnerable population with compassion and with grace. | ||
| Sergeant Cheney has also served as Santa Claus for the Toys for Tots program. | ||
| He's part of the Honor Guard, and he's an active participant in the Cadet Explorer program. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues in Congress join me in thanking Sergeant Olav Cheney on his dedication and his service to the Pikes Peak region and to Colorado and to America. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| The gentleman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose gentlewoman from Georgia seek recognition? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mr. Speaker, I asked unanimous consent to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. | |
| Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | |
| Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Georgia's 5th Congressional District to honor Mr. Robert Bob Willis on a very special 99th birthday. | ||
| Mr. Willis has lived a life of service, and I'm proud to help him celebrate his 99 years of life and more than 75 years of uninterrupted service to Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Incorporated. | ||
| Born in Louisville, Kentucky in 1926, Mr. Willis served in the Navy during World War II and was initiated into the Beta Mu chapter of Alpha Phi Alpha at Kentucky State University in 1949. | ||
| From there, Mr. Willis will go on to serve in many leadership roles in the fraternity, including District Director of Georgia and Southern Regional Vice President. | ||
| Mr. Willis's unceasing fraternal dedication has earned him the highest award that Alpha Phi Alpha can bestow upon a member, the award of merit from General President Darrell Matthews. | ||
| Mr. Willis, you are an exemplification of your brotherhood's moniker, men of distinction. | ||
| Congratulations on your 99th birthday, Mr. Willis, for your life of service and to your community. | ||
| I hope that you're enjoying this day in Atlanta. | ||
| I yield back, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| The gentlewoman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose, gentlemen from Alabama, seek recognition? | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I rise and ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute. | ||
| Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to honor the life and sacrifice of Deputy Sheriff John Randall McCrary of Lauderdale County, Alabama. | ||
| Deputy McCrary dedicated over 15 years to law enforcement, serving with both the Lauderdale County Sheriff's Office and the Rogersville Police Department, where he was promoted to investigator. | ||
| In 2016, Deputy McCrary was shot in the line of duty, and though he survived the attack, he endured years of medical complications until his untimely passing on February 28th of 2024. | ||
| This week, his name was added to the National Law Enforcement Memorial here in Washington, D.C., where his sacrifice will be remembered for generations to come. | ||
| To the McCrary family in North Alabama, we extend our deepest gratitude and heartfelt condolences. | ||
| As we remember Deputy McCrary, let us also honor all of the brave men and women in law enforcement who sacrificed their lives for our safety. | ||
| This week serves as a great reminder of the daily courage it takes to wear the badge and of our responsibility to support those who protect and serve each of us. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I yield back. | ||
| Gentleman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Nevada seek recognition? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I seek unanimous consent to address the House for one minute, please. | |
| Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | |
| I rise today to mourn the loss of a true trailblazer and my dear friend, Susan Toz Spencer. | ||
| She was the first and only general manager, legal counsel, and vice president in NFL history, leading the Philadelphia Eagles. | ||
| After moving to Las Vegas, Susan started her nonprofit, a level playing field, which donated thousands to local high school football teams like that one at Rancho High School. | ||
| She also helped launch a rowing program at Nevada State College, which at the time did not have any competitive sports programs. | ||
| So many in Las Vegas and elsewhere have been touched by Susan's generosity and her tenacity. | ||
| Susan touched so many lives, and her mark on Las Vegas, Philadelphia, and the NFL will always be remembered. | ||
| And with that, I yield. | ||
| Gentlewoman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose, gentleman from California, seek recognition? | ||
| Madam Senator's House of Mid-Roads Several Mustang. | ||
| Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| This week, as you know, is National Police Week. | ||
| And it's always time every day to remember and give thanks to those put on the uniform and stand in the line of fire for all of us. | ||
| I don't want to recite the number of officers killed and injured on duty. | ||
| I want to talk about the upside of what they mean to us, what they mean for keeping us out of harm's way. | ||
| That they're there for us 24-7. | ||
| The numbers should all impact us greatly of the officers we do lose, but they are indeed the front line. | ||
| And this week, we can show at least some level of appreciation by passing legislation that will help them to do their jobs. | ||
| One of these bills tracks violence against officers so we can respond in a meaningful way with meaningful action for them. | ||
| Another has helped the retired officers be able to keep their weapons that they trained with. | ||
| Another one gives qualified officers more flexibility to carry their firearms. | ||
| Indeed, just a common sense step. | ||
| As you know, the badge doesn't completely come off when the shift ends. | ||
| During this week, we show our thanks as we do every day. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| The gentleman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose, the gentleman from North Carolina seek recognition? | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to address the House for one minute. | ||
| Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 16th anniversary of the Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka. | ||
| Today and every day, we stand in unity with the Elon Tamil community. | ||
| Survivors and their families are enduring ongoing struggle and oppression while they seek justice and recognition for their suffering from the Sri Lankan government. | ||
| We must shine a light on the Tamil people and what they've endured. | ||
| We must advocate for a peaceful resolution that respects the rights and dignity of all. | ||
| And Mr. Speaker, we must endure the atrocities like those that happened with the Tamil genocide. | ||
| Make sure it never happens again. | ||
| The Tamil community's resilience in the face of adversity is a testament to their unwavering spirit and determination for justice. | ||
| Let us all stand together with the Elam Tamils. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| The gentleman yields back. | ||
| For what purpose, the gentlewoman from Maryland, seek recognition. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mr. Speaker, I rise. | |
| I seek unanimous consent to address the House for one minute and to revise my and extend my remarks. | ||
| Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, the Trevor Project estimates that at least one LGBTQ youth attempts suicide every 45 seconds. | ||
| Every 45 seconds. | ||
| That's less time than my remarks will take today. | ||
| But instead of addressing this very real public health crisis that our nation's youth face, the Trump administration has issued a budget proposal that seeks to eliminate funding for specialized crisis services for LGBTQ plus youth. | ||
| You see, the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline has saved countless lives. | ||
| And when you call that hotline, you have the option to seek care via a specialist. | ||
| Specialists that serve veterans, Spanish-speaking callers, and LGBTQ youth. | ||
| And 1.2 million Americans have selected that last option, but it might not be an option for much longer. | ||
| The service has saved lives and allowed Americans to receive care they need on their hardest days of their lives. | ||
| And to me, that's what public service is all about. | ||
| Being there for folks on their hardest days. | ||
| I urge my colleagues in this administration to support full funding for these life-saving services. | ||
| And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back. | ||
| The gentlewoman yields back. | ||
| The Chair lays before the House an Enrolled Joint Resolution. | ||
| House Joint Resolution 16. | ||
|
Federal Law Enforcement Weapon Purchase Bill
00:15:48
|
||
| Joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title V, United States Code, of the rules submitted by the National Park Service relating to Glen Canyon National Recreation Area motor vehicles. | ||
| For what purpose does a gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition? | ||
| Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 405, I call up the bill H.R. 2255 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. | ||
| The clerk will report the title of the bill. | ||
| Union calendar number 57, H.R. 2255, a bill to allow federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service weapons and for other purposes. | ||
| Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered red. | ||
| The bill is amended and shall be debated for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective design designees. | ||
| The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry, and the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, will each control 30 minutes. | ||
| The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 225. | ||
| Without objection. | ||
| I yield myself such time as I may consider. | ||
| The gentleman is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, will allow current or former federal law enforcement officers in good standing to purchase a retired service weapon at salvage value from the federal agency that issued the service weapon to the officer. | ||
| Under the bill, the administrator of the general services would be required to establish a program to provide these purchases. | ||
| To be eligible to participate in the program, the officer must be in good standing with the agency, and any firearms sold through the program must be sold within six months of the date when the firearm was retired. | ||
| Current federal regulations require that all federal law enforcement agencies destroy their firearms after they are retired from official use. | ||
| This regulation costs the American taxpayers millions of dollars every year. | ||
| For example, in 2022, the Fraternal Order of Police notified Congress that multiple federal law enforcement agencies were in the process of replacing their service weapon. | ||
| The replacement of these service weapons accounted for the destruction of approximately 20,000 firearms, costing the taxpayers roughly $8 million. | ||
| Not only would this legislation cause agencies and the taxpayers to avoid that cost, but it would also recoup some of the taxpayers' dollars for the initial purchase of the firearm. | ||
| American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for a service weapon twice, once at the initial purchase, when it is acquired by the agency, and then again when it is needlessly destroyed at the end of its life. | ||
| Law enforcement officers should have the opportunity to purchase the service weapon they use while serving in law enforcement. | ||
| By allowing officers to support their to purchase their retired service weapons, this provides a starting point to keeping them safe so that they may protect their communities as well as themselves and their families. | ||
| This legislation is supported by 10 law enforcement organizations, the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Fraternal Order of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Narcotics Officers Association Coalition, the National Service Association, the Sergeants Benevolent Association, NYPD, and the National Treasury Employees Union. | ||
| I hope my colleagues across the aisle recognize this bill not as a partisan measure, but much like last year was in fact bipartisan when it was voted on in the House. | ||
| It is a common sense cost-savings initiative that supports law enforcement and the American taxpayers. | ||
| I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time. | ||
| Gentlemen from South Carolina Reserves, a gentleman from Maryland is recognized. | ||
| Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I yield myself such time as I may consume. | ||
| Gentlemen's recognized Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. | ||
| I want to thank my colleague from South Carolina for his excellent presentation. | ||
| But this bill is a case study in a legislative majority that's in search of not common ground and common sense, but rather extreme measures that divide and polarize the Congress and the people. | ||
| Once upon a time, this was a sensible bipartisan bill led by our Democratic colleague, Val Demings from Orlando, Florida, who'd been a police chief. | ||
| Her bill allowed federal agencies to sell handguns that they were no longer using to the active duty officers who previously carried those handguns for fair market value as long as they completed a background check like everybody else in America. | ||
| Well, last Congress, Republicans weakened that bipartisan bill, which I think commanded unanimous support in Congress, by stripping the background check requirement while still restricting the bill to handgun sales to current law enforcement officers only. | ||
| So we were willing to go along with that compromise. | ||
| We accepted that in the last Congress. | ||
| When the bill came to the floor for a vote, however, Republicans filled the bill with a menagerie of more outlandish and extreme provisions, and that's the version that they started with in this Congress, which is before us today. | ||
| When we marked up the legislation, we offered an amendment that would allow them to go back to the compromise version of the bill, a version of the bill that they themselves had introduced and that we support, but they refused to do it. | ||
| So today, in place of a reasonable, common sense, common ground bill, Republicans are dug in on another extreme proposal that riddles our gun laws with loopholes and politicizes what should have been a simple bipartisan measure. | ||
| The bill before us today would allow surplus firearms to be sold not only to active federal law enforcement officers in good standing, but also to retired law enforcement officers. | ||
| Because the bill also now has no background check requirement, it would create a situation in which it would be possible for an officer to retire, commit a crime like domestic violence or assault that would ordinarily render him or her ineligible to purchase and possess firearms, but then still be able to buy a firearm from the federal government without any background check at all. | ||
| While the bill includes a good standing requirement, as they remind us, this is plainly meaningless as applied to retired officers who may have left a department in perfectly good standing but could not pass a background check today. | ||
| Agencies can certify that an officer is in good standing when they retire, but they have no way to track the behavior of their former officers after that if they cannot do a background check. | ||
| So an agency could unknowingly sell a surplus firearm to someone who cannot lawfully buy a gun. | ||
| And all of this would occur under the statute without any background check at all. | ||
| The bill also allows for the sale of any firearm except machine guns. | ||
| That includes not just handguns, but also assault weapons, destructive devices like hand grenades, and even firearms that are subject to heightened restrictions under the National Firearms Act. | ||
| And it allows them to be sold at salvage value, effectively making it so that the federal government and the taxpayers would actually be subsidizing gun sales. | ||
| They replaced fair market value with salvage value. | ||
| My colleagues have claimed that the bill would not really allow for the sale of all of these types of firearms because it only applies, they say, to service weapons. | ||
| But they need to read their own bill. | ||
| It allows for the sale of any firearm other than a machine gun that is, quote, issued to an officer. | ||
| That means if an officer uses not just a handgun, but an assault rifle, a grenade launcher, anything classified as a destructive device, any firearm or destructive device used by a SWAT team, any firearm or destructive device used by the Secret Service, so long as it's not a machine gun, if it's issued to an officer, can be sold back to him or her without a background check under the bill at salvage value. | ||
| If that's not what they mean and they've been scrambling to deny it, they should change the language of the bill because that's plainly what the bill says. | ||
| And forgive me for insisting on scrupulous attention to words, but that's the business we're in when we enter the legislative process. | ||
| Taken together, the bill makes it so that an officer could retire, commit a crime, become a person who may not legally own firearms under federal law, then buy from the federal government a handgun, a semi-automatic assault rifle, a sawed-off shotgun, or even a grenade launcher at a discount with no background check at all. | ||
| Now look, this is a famously do-nothing or do-very little Congress. | ||
| They don't have much on their agenda other than slashing $880 billion from Medicaid and SNAP and Meals on Wheels and Head Start and the other programs that actually serve Americans who don't live like Elon Musk and Donald Trump. | ||
| But you think that they would have the time at least to write a bill that would not permit these kinds of things to happen. | ||
| These are unacceptable risks of a dangerous weapon being sold to a person who may not legally have one. | ||
| And so reluctantly, we must oppose this bill, which began as a Democratic bill, which commanded unanimous bipartisan support before. | ||
| Nothing in this bill is going to help law enforcement officers actually do their jobs, which was how all of this was introduced when we first started out today. | ||
| Indeed, it doesn't provide a single federal dollar to help local law enforcement. | ||
| In fact, our colleagues have not advanced a single bill during this entire police week or even this entire session of Congress to increase funding to state and local police. | ||
| In fact, the party that now controls the White House in both chambers of Congress is letting Doge and Elon Musk and their midnight crew of computer hackers dismantle entire agencies, fire thousands of federal workers without cause, and generally wreak havoc across the government. | ||
| Last month, Doge decided unilaterally to cancel more than $500 million of Department of Justice grant funding for local law enforcement, public safety, and crime prevention programs all over the country in our communities. | ||
| And what did we hear from our colleagues across the aisle? | ||
| Did they stand up to Doge and object to this defunding of the police? | ||
| No, Mr. Speaker, our colleagues said absolutely nothing. | ||
| And I mean that literally. | ||
| During the Judiciary Committee markup of the reconciliation bill, Democrats offered a simple amendment to immediately restore hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for the police and for hundreds of other essential public safety grant programs dismantled by, as far as we can tell, one employee at Doge. | ||
| Every single one of our GOP colleagues voted against that amendment, but they refused to utter a word in favor of Elon Musk's chainsaw massacre of local law enforcement and public safety programs. | ||
| They don't want to be quoted supporting Doge, but even if your quotes don't support Doge, your votes support Doge, and they have voted not to restore hundreds of millions of dollars that Doge cut from our state and local and county law enforcement and public safety organizations. | ||
| And in case some of our colleagues haven't heard yet from their outraged constituents about this, let me offer just one example of more than 365 grants that were abruptly terminated by Doge. | ||
| That's one grant program per day all across the country. | ||
| Well, Doge cut funding for a program called the Rural Violent Crime Reduction Initiative, which provided funding to dozens and dozens of rural law enforcement agencies across America, allowing them with their strapped budgets to hire more officers and purchase up-to-date equipment and technology. | ||
| They also supported rural victim services and crime prevention programming. | ||
| This program was created to assist small rural agencies that need federal funding but are so small, short-staffed, or under-resourced, they wouldn't even have the ability to apply for the funding. | ||
| Well, one such recipient of this grant from the Rural Violent Crime Reduction Initiative was the Shawano, Wisconsin Police Department, which was using the funding to pay for a detective dedicated to investigating and solving unsolved violent crimes and to stop narcotics trafficking in their community. | ||
| The police department said the additional detective would build trust with community members, increase patrols in hotspot areas, enhance crime prevention, and sustain a reduction in violent crime and narcotics-related crime. | ||
| And this is just one of the hundreds of rural police departments and other agencies using this funding from this one grant program from 365 that were suddenly terminated by one Doge employee running amok in the Department of Justice. | ||
| This is funding, Mr. Speaker, that we in the House of Representatives voted for on an overwhelming bipartisan basis, that the Senate overwhelmingly voted for. | ||
| on a bipartisan basis. | ||
|
Doge's Unauthorized Cut
00:00:59
|
||
| We had bicameral passage and presentment to the president. | ||
| The president signed it into law. | ||
| The Department of Justice got the funding. | ||
| The Department of Justice programmed the funding. | ||
| The Department of Justice awarded those grants all across America. | ||
| And guess who stopped it? | ||
| Without my knowledge, without their knowledge, without anybody's knowledge, one Doge employee, one of Elon Musk's junior lieutenants who spent his career at Tesla and then he decided he was going to wipe out hundreds of millions of dollars going to our people. | ||
| Well, are our colleagues going to allow Doge to get away with this critical destruction of law enforcement in rural communities, urban communities, suburban communities across the land? | ||
|
GSA And Weapon Purchases
00:10:49
|
||
| Apparently so. | ||
| They remain silent on it. | ||
| They won't utter a word in favor of it, but they don't utter a peep against it. | ||
| They just vote for it. | ||
| They just sheepishly get in line and support this destruction of what we had already voted for to put into action. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, which is a trivial distraction from what's really going on in America today, which is they are dismantling the priorities of the people as passed through the people's house and through the Senate and signed into law. | ||
| And I urge my colleagues to join us in actually standing up for law enforcement and for the police and for community safety. | ||
| And I invite them to join us in actually standing up for the Article I powers of Congress. | ||
| And I hope they will join us in rejecting Doge's deranged funding cuts that are undermining public safety and harming law enforcement across the land. | ||
| I reserve the balance of my time. | ||
| Gentleman from Maryland Reserves, the gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| Just to discuss a few of the extraneous comments that were made by the Minority Party. | ||
| The officer that is currently employed by a federal law enforcement agency must be in good standing. | ||
| And in order for that to happen, obviously they're not committing crimes. | ||
| And so some of these things that are kind of coming out that the minority party talks about or has talked about is the officer must be in good standing. | ||
| If they have blemishes on their record, they're no longer employed or employable by that federal agency. | ||
| Second of all, grenade launchers are not issued by federal law enforcement agencies. | ||
| They are not issued weapons by federal. | ||
| They might be used by federal law enforcement, but they are not issued to that officer. | ||
| So sawed-off shotguns, the same thing. | ||
| They are not issued to an officer. | ||
| The officer must be in good standing. | ||
| And in the event that the officer is retired within that six-month period, these weapons don't sit around with their name on them in a locker room somewhere waiting for the weapon to also be retired. | ||
| It is then issued to another officer. | ||
| And so the program only extends if you're retired and you happen to have the ability when you are retired to purchase that retired service weapon. | ||
| You've got a six-month period in which to do that. | ||
| So the window is very short. | ||
| And GSA, under the bill, has every opportunity to come up with the rules and regulations related to this. | ||
| A lot of this is distraction. | ||
| This is the same bill that we passed last year. | ||
| In fact, 13 Democrats supported this bill. | ||
| And so the smoke and mirrors that's created by the minority just don't actually exist in reality. | ||
| This is a very common sense bill. | ||
| Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every single day. | ||
| They should be able to purchase their service weapon. | ||
| And if the officer is retired and their service weapon is retired, roughly commensurate to when they actually physically retire, then they could also purchase that. | ||
| But no one is actually charged and convicted with the crime that he talks about that would be precluded from doing this. | ||
| GSA has all the rights to come up with the regulations themselves. | ||
| The statute is very clear. | ||
| And law enforcement officers are not issued machine guns. | ||
| They're not issued grenade launchers. | ||
| They're not issued sought-off shotguns or missile launchers or helicopters. | ||
| These are not part and parcel to an officer's weapons in the line of duty. | ||
| They're issued handguns, maybe a shotgun, and maybe a rifle. | ||
| That is it. | ||
| And so these things are ultimately distractions. | ||
| The Doe stuff I won't respond to at all because it doesn't need to. | ||
| But this is a common sense bill supported by a lot of law enforcement agencies, a lot of law enforcement organizations, and was voted on in a bipartisan fashion last Congress. | ||
| And with that, Mr. Speaker, we've got no other speakers left, but I do reserve. | ||
| Gentleman from South Carolina Reserves, the gentleman from Maryland is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Chairman. | ||
| And perhaps my friend from South Carolina would indulge me a few questions because I'm puzzled by some of the representations that were just made. | ||
| The gentleman answers a point I didn't make. | ||
| He said that the officer must be in good standing in order to be sold the gun. | ||
| That's true, if they are an officer. | ||
| But what if they are a retired officer? | ||
| What does it mean to be a retired officer who's in good standing when that person no longer has a record and the department is not keeping track of them? | ||
| That's why the original legislation insisted that there be a background check. | ||
| I'm wondering if the gentleman would answer that question. | ||
| Would he yield? | ||
| Okay, well, you get that one. | ||
| Let me ask another question. | ||
| The gentleman says that only handguns would be issued to officers whether they're currently officers or whether they're retired. | ||
| But SWAT teams are included by your legislation, I believe. | ||
| Are not members of SWAT teams issued semi-automatic weapons and other kinds of guns? | ||
| Are you saying that this applies only to handguns? | ||
| And if so, why didn't you write it to apply only to handguns? | ||
| The grenade launchers, sawed-off shotguns, and the like. | ||
| Those are permitted to be used, but they're not issued to an officer. | ||
| Even in the case of a SWAT team, you're saying that a member of a SWAT team would not have a semi-automatic weapon. | ||
| They don't take those weapons home with them is the whole point, Mr. Raskin. | ||
| And under GSA, if you're not afraid of the public. | ||
| Are they not issued to the officers? | ||
| To answer your first question, if you're in good standing, then that means you cannot have committed a felony. | ||
| While you're an officer, but now let's say you retire and you commit domestic violence or assault or battery or some other offense two years later. | ||
| The department is not notified of that, is not keeping track of it. | ||
| So what does it mean to say a retired person is in good standing if they've committed a crime in the meantime? | ||
| But the prohibited purchaser statute would preclude them from being able to purchase that to begin with. | ||
| Okay, so okay, so there's nothing that would actually prevent the sale actually by GSA, right? | ||
| Who would effectuate the provisions of the prohibited purchaser statute? | ||
| GSA comes up with the regulations. | ||
| That's laid out very clearly in the bill that they would come up with those regulations. | ||
| So then we're establishing legislative history that according to you, this legislation is designed to apply only to handguns and not to all of these other things which you say are irrelevant. | ||
| Is that right? | ||
| No, what I'm saying is that these things are not actually in reality. | ||
| People are not issued helicopters or grenades or whatever else. | ||
| Well, then why is it in your bill? | ||
| Because they're not actually issued it. | ||
| You can't buy these things. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You cannot buy these games. | |
| Look, they went to the pains of excluding machine guns, saying that they didn't want a retired officer to be able to purchase a machine gun, but then they're allowing grenade launchers and semi-automatic weapons and all these other weapons. | ||
| I don't understand why, when the gentleman now is vigorously protesting that that is not the intention of the statute. | ||
| That's not the intention of the legislation. | ||
| Please rewrite the bill to be in accord with what you're saying, which is that this applies only to handguns. | ||
| Otherwise, you're just multiplying the proliferation of regulations, which I thought you were opposed to. | ||
| So now you're saying we want the GSA to issue a whole bunch of regulations to do the work that Congress refuses to do. | ||
| And I think you're moving a little bit closer to what Congresswoman Deming's original legislation was if you limit it to handguns. | ||
| Because what she said is, look, obviously someone who retires from the force can go out and purchase whatever weapons they want. | ||
| This was the sentimental value of allowing an officer to purchase a gun that he or she used when they were actually in service at fair market value. | ||
| And now you've riddled it with all these other exceptions and completely changed the meaning of the legislation in a way that moves us backwards in terms of public safety. | ||
| 80 or 90 percent of the American people want a universal violent criminal background check in America. | ||
| We think we have enough loopholes as it is with the internet loophole, which the majority refuses to close, with the private gun show loophole, which the majority refuses to close, with the person-to-person private sale loophole, which the majority refuses to close. | ||
| We don't need more loopholes. | ||
| America already stands out as an outlier in the world among advanced industrialized countries. | ||
| We have rates of gun violence and gun homicide that are 10 or 20 times higher than Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, you name it. | ||
| Nothing comes close to us. | ||
| And instead of helping police officers by getting guns out of the hands of criminals, our colleagues are just looking for ways to create more loopholes in the laws for purchasing guns. | ||
| I'll reserve the balance of my time. | ||
| The gentleman from Maryland Reserves, the gentleman from South Carolina, is recognized. | ||
| I reserve. | ||
| Gentleman from South Carolina Reserves, the gentleman from Maryland is recognized. | ||
| So I'm going to read that. | ||
| Is recognized. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Again, I just wanted to nail down into the weeds here exactly what the legislation says, right? | ||
| So the term firearm is the meaning given that term in Section 921A of Title 18, excluding any machine gun. | ||
| So they've properly decided that we should not put more machine guns into the stream of commerce. | ||
| But what is still swept within it? | ||
| Well, any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one quarter ounce mine device and so on. | ||
| Why would we want to open this up if that's not the intention of my colleague? | ||
| And I take him completely in good faith at his word. | ||
| Let's write that out of the bill. | ||
| Because what we've seen is that people who mean to do harm to other people will exploit any other opportunity to do it. | ||
| And so I don't understand the logic of excluding machine guns, but then sweeping in all of these other dangerous weapons. | ||
| And I'd be happy to yield to my friend if he wants to elaborate on that, or I'll reserve my time. | ||
| Maybe he can use some of the things that we're talking about. | ||
| The gentleman from Maryland Reserves, gentleman from South Carolina, is recognized. | ||
|
Chanting Hang Mike Pence
00:15:40
|
||
| I reserve. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And the gentleman from South Carolina recognizes that. | |
| We don't have any other speakers, Mr. Speaker, so we are prepared to close, but we'll keep yielding to them. | ||
| South Carolina Reserves, the gentleman from Maryland, is recognized. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, there's another bit of business we need to clean up here, and I would invite my distinguished colleague from South Carolina to join me in this. | ||
| We voted back on March 15th, 2022, to erect a plaque in the Congress of the United States to honor the police officers who fought tooth and nail with valor and courage and heroism to defend us against mobs of thousands of marauding rioters and insurrectionists, proud boys, oath keepers, three percenters who came to try to overthrow a presidential election. | ||
| They stormed the Capitol. | ||
| They injured, wounded, hospitalized, brutalized more than 140 officers, many of whom are still suffering from the physical and mental wounds today. | ||
| Well, we voted back on March 15, 2022, to put a plaque up in Congress to honor them. | ||
| And it reads this: On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. | ||
| Their heroism will never be forgotten. | ||
| Well, alas, Mr. Speaker, their heroism seems already to have been forgotten by some of our colleagues. | ||
| The plaque exists. | ||
| We've got the plaque. | ||
| It's been produced. | ||
| And yet the Speaker of the House refuses to put the plaque up two years later. | ||
| Why? | ||
| Why will we not honor the police officers like Sergeant Gannell, who was forced to leave the police force because of the severe injuries that he suffered then and is trying to support his family on around half the salary that he had before? | ||
| Why would we not honor the officers like Michael Fanone, who wasn't even on duty that day, but he heard about the riots at the Capitol and he came down to join the fight with his brothers and sisters in blue and was nearly killed? | ||
| He begged for his life to the mob, saying he had four daughters of his own. | ||
| He had a heart attack. | ||
| Will we not honor Michael Fanon? | ||
| Will we honor Officer Harry Dunn, who fought for hours and hours enduring not just all the physical attacks, but savage racial epithets and abuse? | ||
| How about Officer Hodges, who nearly died trying to stop the mob from entering the Capitol? | ||
| He got caught in the doorway on the western front of the Capitol. | ||
| He was tortured in front of the eyes of the world. | ||
| You probably know the pictures of him being caught and beaten by the mob, which that day was wielding Confederate battle flags, American flags, baseball bats, steel pipes, broken furniture, you name it, to attack our officers. | ||
| These people gave blood, sweat, and tears. | ||
| And several officers died in the aftermath, including Officer Brian Sicknick, who died the very next day after receiving grievous wounds and injuries. | ||
| And we could be doing a lot more for them. | ||
| President Trump wants a fund for January 6th. | ||
| That's good, right? | ||
| No, he wants a fund for the rioters' families. | ||
| He wants a fund for the insurrectionists that he pardoned, not for the police officers. | ||
| Will my colleagues say anything about that? | ||
| At the very least, let's put up the plaque to honor these officers. | ||
| Not a single member of the majority has given us one reason why this plaque, which is completed, has not been hung in the Capitol of the United States. | ||
| Why not? | ||
| And if you don't respect the law enforcement officers and the police who fought tooth and nail for us that day, at least respect the rule of law. | ||
| They're supposed to be up two years ago. | ||
| I'll reserve. | ||
| The gentleman from Maryland, reserves. | ||
| The gentleman from South Carolina. | ||
| I reserve. | ||
| The gentleman from South Carolina, reserves. | ||
| The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. | ||
| We're prepared to close. | ||
| The gentleman is recognized. | ||
| The gentleman from Maryland recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| Forgive my passion, but I was there. | ||
| I was here on January 6, 2021. | ||
| I heard them chanting, hang Mike Pence. | ||
| Hang Mike Pence. | ||
| The words are still echoing in my mind from that day. | ||
| They're looking for Nancy Pelosi. | ||
| They were quoted as saying they wanted to assassinate Nancy Pelosi. | ||
| They stormed her office. | ||
| They took over her office. | ||
| Do we honor police officers for real? | ||
| Or do we only honor them if it's politically convenient for us to honor them? | ||
| Like the prosecutors. | ||
| The new Attorney General got in. | ||
| The new acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin got in. | ||
| They were forced to withdraw that nomination after it turned out he'd appeared 150 different times on Russian propaganda networks like Russia Today and Sputnik. | ||
| And after it turned out he had all kinds of neo-Nazi affiliations and friendships. | ||
| But anyway, he got in and you know what he did? | ||
| They fired more than a dozen of the most experienced veteran prosecutors in the Department of Justice. | ||
| Why? | ||
| Because they did their jobs, because they prosecuted the people who committed that massive assault on American democracy. | ||
| The greatest mass assault, violent assault on the Capitol in the history of the United States. | ||
| We've never seen anything like it. | ||
| But this administration not only pardoned more than 1,500 people who participated in that brutality, in that attempt to overthrow an election which Joe Biden won by more than 7 million votes, 306 to 232 in Electoral College, not only did they pardon all of those offenders, whether they were nonviolent or violent, and a lot of them have already gone on to reoffend since they got their pardons from Donald Trump. | ||
| Well, not only did they do that, they wanted to sack the prosecutors for doing their jobs. | ||
| Is there anybody on that side of the aisle that will speak out against this obscenity? | ||
| No, I don't think so. | ||
| Is there anybody on that side of the aisle who is uttering support for law enforcement during our law enforcement week who will say it's time to put up the plaque in honor of the officers who defended us? | ||
| Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues have some good reason for doing what they're doing. | ||
| You know, the framers of the Constitution thought that people who participated in government would come to identify with their branch of government. | ||
| And that's why I thought, well, when they stormed the Capitol and Donald Trump incited a violent insurrection against us, that we would in bipartisan unison denounce it and vote to impeach and convict. | ||
| Ten Republicans did join all of the Democrats in doing that. | ||
| That was historic. | ||
| Seven Republican senators voted to convict after seeing overwhelming evidence. | ||
| Mitch McConnell also found the evidence completely convincing, but he said, well, I don't think the Senate has jurisdiction to try and convict a former president, despite the fact that that contradicted two centuries of precedent. | ||
| And the Senate ruled on the very first day against that motion to dismiss the charges. | ||
| But he said there was nothing that could be done, even though Donald Trump was actually and factually and ethically and morally responsible for everything that happened. | ||
| When will my colleagues break from the cultish obedience to Donald Trump, who now is over in the Middle East on what looks like a business trip for him and his family? | ||
| They're all raking in not just hundreds of millions of dollars, but billions of dollars with their business deals. | ||
| And my colleagues are back home doing his bidding, trying to slash $888 billion from Medicaid and the programs that the American people have built. | ||
| Our parents and our grandparents built those programs so we can take care of ourselves. | ||
| And the richest man in the world and Donald Trump, now they've got another agenda. | ||
| They've left your agenda behind. | ||
| They left you guys to do the dirty work. | ||
| Donald Trump, he's collecting a $400 million flying grift gift from Qatar. | ||
| They're giving him bribery force one. | ||
| Nobody's ever seen anything like this in the history of the United States. | ||
| They're trying to give him a jet plane. | ||
| How humiliating is that for the American president to be flying around in a plane created by the dictator, the theocratic monster of Qatar, while they're collecting billions of dollars and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner's gotten $2 billion from Saudi Arabia. | ||
| Totally in violation of the Constitution. | ||
| Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 says that nobody holding an office of trust under the United States shall, without the consent of Congress, collect a present, an emolument, an office, or title of any kind whatever from a king, a prince, or a foreign state. | ||
| And that's Donald Trump's new business to go and collect foreign government emoluments. | ||
| I hope my colleagues will join us at least in demanding that he come to Congress to ask for permission to keep that $400 million bug-riddled airplane that he wants to fly around on somebody else's tab. | ||
| It is absurd the lengths that they've gone to to mangle and trample our Constitution. | ||
| Yeah, let's get back to law enforcement. | ||
| Let's get back to the rule of law, starting with the Constitution of the United States of America. | ||
| That president wants to keep all of these gifts from foreign dictators, come to Congress. | ||
| That's what Abraham Lincoln did. | ||
| The king of Siam gave Abraham Lincoln elephant tusks. | ||
| This is in the middle of the Civil War. | ||
| Check out the dissent of honor and integrity in our country. | ||
| Middle of the Civil War, President Lincoln comes to Congress and says, can I keep those elephant tusks? | ||
| And Congress comes back with a message and says, we love you, Honest Abe. | ||
| You're doing a great job in the war, but no. | ||
| Turn those over to the Department of Interior. | ||
| My colleagues will not even demand that Donald Trump bring his corrupt gifts, his royal spoils to the Congress of the United States to ask our consent. | ||
| And every president has done it up until this one. | ||
| So let's get back to the rule of law. | ||
| Let's enforce the Constitution. | ||
| Let's honor the police officers who defended us. | ||
| And let's stay away from bills that just put a lot more guns into traffic to make life more dangerous for police officers and for everybody in America. | ||
| I yield back, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All right. | |
| The gentleman yields back, and now members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President. | ||
| The Chair will receive a message. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mr. Speaker. | |
| Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I have been directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has passed S-195, an act to amend the Visit America Act to promote music tourism and for other purposes. | ||
| From South Carolina is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Service Weapons Purchase Act, is a very common sense piece of legislation supported by Republicans and at least last Congress by 13 Democrats as well. | ||
| 14 members across the aisle voted in favor of this same exact bill, and I encourage more members to do so as we honor police this week and into the future. | ||
| Look, law enforcement officers are faced with danger every single day, not only on the job, but when they return to their home. | ||
| This common sense bill allows them, honors them a little bit, and shows them that we want them to have these weapons in their home to protect them, their property, and their family as well. | ||
| And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back. | ||
| Gentleman yields back. | ||
| All time for debate has expired. | ||
| Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. | ||
| The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. | ||
| Those in favor say aye. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Aye. | |
| Opposed? | ||
| No. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| The ayes have it. | ||
| Third reading. | ||
| A bill to allow federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service weapons and for other purposes. | ||
| The question is on the passage of the bill. | ||
| Those in favor say aye. | ||
| Those opposed, no. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| Two to one. | ||
| In the opinion of the chair? | ||
|
unidentified
|
What do we got in the aye? | |
| Have it over the nose. | ||
|
unidentified
|
For what purposes, the gentleman from Maryland? | |
| Speaker. | ||
| For what purpose, gentleman from Maryland speak? | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call for the ayes and the nays. | ||
| The yays and nays are requested. | ||
| Those favor a vote by yays and nays will rise. | ||
| A significant number have risen. | ||
| The yeas and nays are ordered pursuant to clause 8 of the rule 20. | ||
| Further proceedings on the question will be postponed. | ||
| Does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition? | ||
| Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 405, I call up the bill H.R. 2240 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. | ||
| Okay, the clerk will report the title of the bill. | ||
| Union calendar number 56, H.R. 2240, a bill to require the Attorney General to develop reports relating to violent attacks against law enforcement officers and for other purposes. | ||
| Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered red. | ||
|
Lives at Stake
00:10:29
|
||
| The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. | ||
| The gentleman from South Carolina have 30 minutes. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2240. | ||
| Without objection, I yield myself such time as I may consume. | ||
| Very recognized the gentleman from South Carolina. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| Police officers risk their lives every day to protect our communities. | ||
| I want to extend my sincere gratitude to all law enforcement officers and their families for their service and their sacrifice. | ||
| Unfortunately, law enforcement officers face the continued threat of unprovoked and ambush-style attacks. | ||
| The bill before us, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, would require the Attorney General to develop a series of reports related to violent attacks on law enforcement officers. | ||
| The left's defund the police movement continues to have ripple effects throughout the country and as violent crime remains high and criminals have become more brazen in their attacks against police officers. | ||
| In addition, rogue prosecutors and left-wing bail reform policies continue to allow more criminals on the street with no accountability. | ||
| Let me be clear. | ||
| The threat to officer safety is very real, and we must take a stand against any defund the police rhetoric. | ||
| In 2024, 342 officers were killed in the line of duty, with 79 of them shot in 61 ambush-style attacks. | ||
| As of May 1st, 2025, 109 officers have been shot in the line of duty just this year. | ||
| This violence against law enforcement is unacceptable and underscores the importance of this legislation. | ||
| While the government collects basic information on these attacks, such as when the attack occurred and what types of weapons are used, the information is needed to help law enforcement officers prepare for, identify, and prevent future anti-police activity. | ||
| This legislation will also shed light on the mental health consequences of the attacks on law enforcement and other trauma law enforcement deals with on a daily basis. | ||
| Mental health resources are another critical need for law enforcement officers as they continue to risk their lives every day to keep their communities safe. | ||
| We must take care of those who do so much to take care of us. | ||
| This legislation is common sense. | ||
| It will gather more information to help Congress explore the best possible solutions for our law enforcement officers. | ||
| I would like to mention that 146 of my colleagues across the aisle voted in favor of this legislation last Congress. | ||
| It is incredibly bipartisan. | ||
| Let's all work together to stand against attacks on law enforcement and support our men and women in blue. | ||
| I urge my colleagues to support this crucial legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time. | ||
| Gentleman from South Carolina Reserves. | ||
| And the woman from Georgia is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I yield myself as much time as I may consume. | ||
| The gentlewoman is recognized. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Mr. Speaker, I actually rise in support of the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act. | ||
| The law enforcement officers serve as our lifeline of defense against danger. | ||
| With this bill, we will have an opportunity to equip the Department of Justice and Congress with very crucial information to better understand and enhance officer safety. | ||
| Law enforcement officers deserve to return home safely to their families, knowing their well-being is truly a priority. | ||
| Federal, state, local, and tribal officers face very long hours, immense pressure, and unpredictable dangers every day. | ||
| And over time, the constant strain of the job can take a significant toll on their bodies and their minds. | ||
| While these are some mental health, while there are some mental health resources currently available to our officers, there's still so much more that we can and we should be doing to ensure their wellness and most definitely their safety. | ||
| By prioritizing data-driven approaches to officer safety and wellness, we can address systemic risks, reduce preventable tragedies, and build a stronger, more resilient law enforcement system. | ||
| The goal is that the required report will provide us with the insight into the challenges our officers face and help us to understand the additional support that they need to remain physically and mentally safe. | ||
| Federal law enforcement officers dedicate themselves to protecting our nation, to protecting our communities, and it is our responsibility in this body to ensure that they receive the protection that they deserve. | ||
| Law enforcement officers face unparalleled risks every day, from physical violence to psychological traumas. | ||
| According to the FBI, assaults against officers remain very, very high, with tens of thousands of them that are injured annually. | ||
| Beyond the line of duty, officers experience higher rates of PTSD, depression, and suicide compared to the general population. | ||
| Yet for too long, this body, Congress, has not done as much as we should to tackle these issues that they face. | ||
| This bill requires the collection and analysis of critical data on attacks on officers, injuries that they suffer, their mental health challenges, and wellness program effectiveness. | ||
| Without accurate data, we're fighting blind. | ||
| By identifying trends such as the frequency of attacks on officers or gaps in mental health support, we can implement targeted solutions to keep our officers safe and to keep them healthy. | ||
| Many officer fatalities and injuries are preventable with better training, better equipment, and better policies. | ||
| For example, if data reveals that a significant number of injuries occurred during traffic stops, agencies can adopt safer tactics or deploy new technologies. | ||
| If certain regions report higher rates of firearm-related fatalities, we can prioritize resources there. | ||
| Officer suicide rates outpace line of duty deaths. | ||
| And I want to say this again. | ||
| Officer suicide rates outpace line of duty deaths. | ||
| Yet stigma and inadequate resources prevent many of them from seeking help. | ||
| This bill will help us track mental health trends, evaluate the effectiveness of peer support programs, and expand access to counseling. | ||
| Healthy officers are better officers. | ||
| They're more effective officers, both for their own well-being and for the communities that they serve. | ||
| When officers are safer and they're healthier and they're better supported, they're better equipped to serve with professionalism and with empathy. | ||
| Our communities benefit when law enforcement agencies are operating using data to improve practices rather than reacting to crises. | ||
| But the improving law enforcement officer safety and wellness through Data Act isn't just about gathering data and reporting statistics. | ||
| It's about lives and it's about public safety. | ||
| It's about the officer who returns home safely to their family at night, the rookie who gets life-saving training, or the veteran who receives mental health care instead of suffering in silence. | ||
| But if we are to realize any of these benefits, this bill must be the first step that we take and definitely not the last. | ||
| We must be prepared to act on the information that we get from these reports that come from this bill, much of which is already collected by the DOJ and other agencies. | ||
| We must be prepared to provide tangible resources to our law enforcement, which I'm sure the reports will suggest that they need. | ||
| As we observe National Police Week and talk about officer safety and wellness, I would be remiss if I did not call for the immediate restoration of hundreds of millions of dollars affecting nearly 40 states in public safety grant funding that the Department of Justice chose to abruptly terminate. | ||
| Some of that canceled funding went to law enforcement training, support, and other critical resources, and more specifically to addressing the health, the safety, and wellness of law enforcement. | ||
| And as I have here, President Trump's 2026 budget would have devastating impact on public policy. | ||
| $1 billion across 40 Department of Justice grant programs, which support police departments and reduce violent crime, hate crime, and crime against women. | ||
|
Improving Law Enforcement Safety
00:15:35
|
||
| That's been cut. | ||
| $646 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, for violence and terrorism. | ||
| And I could go on and on and on, but I won't. | ||
| These terminations include a grant totaled over $8 million to the National Policing Institute, which assisted rural police departments and district attorneys' offices to pay for violent crime investigators and programs to combat child sex abuse. | ||
| I also feel that it's necessary to mention once again, as the ranking member has, the plaque that we voted to hang in the Capitol more than three years ago to honor the countless officers who fought and they died to protect the lives of members of Congress, all of us in this body. | ||
| Not only members of Congress, but staffers and other personnel. | ||
| And to save our democracy on January 6, 2021, hanging this plaque is the least that we could do to honor those that have fought and died and given their lives for us, this body. | ||
| Hanging this plaque is required by law, a law that was passed. | ||
| We passed the law over three years ago. | ||
| Why is this plaque not up? | ||
| That's a simple question. | ||
| Why is this law being defied? | ||
| That's a simple question. | ||
| Many of those officers who have been left feeling ignored and betrayed by the very members of Congress, they stand outside every single day and they protect and they watch over us and they feel betrayed. | ||
| Many times they can't even look at us as we walk out the door because they feel betrayed. | ||
| They fought to protect us on that day, January 6th, and yes, we still betray them. | ||
| Former U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Akalino Gunnell recently told our staff, and I quote, Trump is treating the rioters like they were the ones defending the Capitol, end quote. | ||
| He went on to say of Trump calling January 6th a day of love. | ||
| End quote. | ||
| He says that if that was a day of love, they almost loved me to death. | ||
| End quote. | ||
| If we really intend to support our officers, they should not be feeling this level of betrayal and disappointment in the government that they swore to defend and protect. | ||
| Officers who put their lives on the line for us, they deserve better. | ||
| Let me take a point of privilege to say when I lost my son, Jordan, in Jacksonville, Florida, November 23rd, 2012, at a convenience store gas station by a man who never should have had a gun, that convenience store family, the owners, at least had the decency to put a plaque up in remembrance of my slain son, | ||
| who was simply stopping to get some chewing gum as he was going from one mall to the next with his friends. | ||
| They at least had the decency, and my son wasn't doing anything to protect the nation or protect members of Congress, but yet instill out of dignity and respect for someone that was slain unnecessarily, they at least had the decency to put a plaque up in remembrance of my son. | ||
| We should no less do that for these folks that stand here every single day. | ||
| They would take bullets for us. | ||
| Let's do the right thing. | ||
| Why would we not honor them? | ||
| We can't say one thing that we want to serve and that we want to protect them and we want to make their lives better. | ||
| American people are watching us. | ||
| We can't say one thing and do another. | ||
| They're depending on us. | ||
| Let's do the right thing. | ||
| Simply just put this plaque out for all of us, for their service to us and to this nation. | ||
| While I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, I also urge them to do more than just collect data and request reports from other officials. | ||
| Thank you, and I reserve the balance of my time. | ||
| Gentlelady from Georgia Reserves, a gentleman from South Carolina, is recognized. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from North Carolina, my good friend Mr. Moore, the bill's primary sponsor, I yield him such time as he may consume. | ||
| Gentlemen is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Bry. | ||
| I rise today in support of H.R. 2240, the Improving Law Enforcement Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, a bill that I introduced in response to the deeply troubling rise in targeted violence against our nation's law enforcement. | ||
| Every day, officers across this great nation put their lives on the line to keep our communities safe. | ||
| And far too often, they in fact become the targets of violence simply for wearing the badge. | ||
| This year alone, this year alone, again, we're only in May, there have been 109 officers shot in the line of duty, 12 of whom tragically lost their lives. | ||
| Even more alarming, Mr. Speaker, there have been 21 ambush-style attacks on law enforcement officers this year, resulting in 25 officers shot, five of whom were killed. | ||
| These numbers do not account, though, even for the many instances where officers were fired upon, but fortunately not struck. | ||
| Ambush-style attacks are some of the most dangerous. | ||
| They are calculated and often deadly, leading to higher rates of both injuries and fatalities. | ||
| That's why I introduced this legislation to assure that we are doing all we can at the federal level to understand, to prevent, and respond to these targeted attacks. | ||
| The Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act enhances our ability to collect and, more importantly, to analyze data on violent acts against officers. | ||
| This will empower agencies around the country with the information that they need to strengthen their response and better protect their personnel. | ||
| Importantly, H.R. 2240 also calls for a comprehensive assessment of availability and use of mental health resources within law enforcement because protecting those who protect us must include supporting their mental well-being. | ||
| We need to make sure that we get away from any shame that can sometimes happen when a law enforcement officer needs to reach out for some kind of mental health counseling. | ||
| If you think about it, these men and women see oftentimes the worst of folks. | ||
| They see folks who are in their worst state. | ||
| They see the tragedies that hopefully most of us will go through life and never have to see. | ||
| And they do it every day, day in and day out, because it's their job that they have chosen to do to keep us safe. | ||
| You know, these officers answer the call day or night. | ||
| They don't have a choice as to what they respond to. | ||
| They run toward danger to safeguard our neighborhoods, and far too often they pay a heavy price. | ||
| We owe them more than our gratitude. | ||
| We owe them action. | ||
| And I'll say this: there were a couple of comments about past events, some of which happened before I came here as a new member. | ||
| But I do remember very well the spring of 2020 when we saw many of our cities burned, looted, destroyed, some of them that have not yet even recovered, and where instead of law enforcement being supported by some in those local governments, they were vilified when they were out doing what they could to try to help, when they were told to stand down and allow mobs to go in and destroy property. | ||
| I saw that firsthand, Mr. Speaker, in Raleigh. | ||
| I mean, I literally watched, I literally watched folks roaming around, destroying windows, burning vehicles, shooting, all this kind of mayhem. | ||
| And then I saw some, you know, no names, but some on the other side that would kind of give cover and say, well, it was understandable. | ||
| It was a peaceful protest. | ||
| It's not a peaceful protest if you're destroying buildings. | ||
| It's not a peaceful protest if you're attacking someone. | ||
| It's not a peaceful protest if you're burning buildings, burning cars, engaging in violent contact. | ||
| And then we saw from that some of this anti-police that came about, the defund the police. | ||
| I am glad to see that I don't hear that very much anymore. | ||
| I hope that foolish idea never gets raised again in this great chamber. | ||
| Because if it were not for the men and women in law enforcement, it would be a society of disorder and just and random violence. | ||
| We owe these men and women all we can do for them. | ||
| We owe them to make sure that their jobs are safe. | ||
| I think about a situation, Mr. Speaker, that happened in Wake County, North Carolina in 2022, where a sheriff's deputy was ambushed and killed by an illegal immigrant. | ||
| I'm not trying to open up the debate on illegal immigration. | ||
| Fortunately, this body has taken action along with our president to secure the border, to stop gang members from coming into this country. | ||
| But someone who was in this country, who shouldn't have even been here, attacked, ambushed a Wake County deputy, and killed him. | ||
| These stories happen around the country. | ||
| So this is one more piece, one more piece, and finally bringing some sanity, bringing some protection, providing protection for the American people to make sure that they're not having to worry about gang members being allowed into the country, that we're not allowing illegal immigration to run amut, that we're not, you know, downing the police and somehow lifting up the criminals. | ||
| The American people were tired of that. | ||
| They were tired of it. | ||
| And guess what? | ||
| They're getting results. | ||
| This is one more piece to try to do this to help these men and women in law enforcement. | ||
| And I appreciate the body support. | ||
| I encourage all the members to vote for it. | ||
| With that, I yield back to the gentleman from South Carolina. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I reserve. | ||
| Gentleman from South Carolina Reserves, the gentlelady from Georgia is recognized. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I yield eight minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Representative Raskin. | ||
| Salute. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| Thank you very much, and thank you, Ranking Member McBath, for your extraordinary leadership. | ||
| I rise to support the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, which seeks to improve law enforcement officer safety and wellness by requiring that the AG and other federal officials issue regular reports on attacks on police officers, aggression against police officers, and on officer mental health. | ||
| I salute Mr. Fry, a freshman to this body, for his stewardship of this bill. | ||
| The collection of this information is important and useful, but of course the mere passive gathering of data does little or nothing to actually improve officer effectiveness or public safety. | ||
| In fact, none of the bills we've considered from the majority during this law enforcement week would actually produce any measurable gains in public safety. | ||
| We spent the week voting for bills that will do nothing really but increase the number of weapons on our streets, our buses, our trains, our subways, parks, and restaurants, and in our schools. | ||
| That's a strange way to improve public safety or aid law enforcement in doing their jobs. | ||
| Now, there are things we can actually do to improve public safety. | ||
| And forgive me, I know Mr. Fry's in his second term, not in his first term, and he's a valuable member of our committee. | ||
| The last gentleman to speak said he never wanted to hear about defunding the police again. | ||
| And I agree with him completely. | ||
| The problem is he's about to hear about it because Doge is defunding the police as we speak. | ||
| And unfortunately, with your cooperation and your passivity, they're getting away with it. | ||
| Now, this self-anointed fourth branch of government, Doge, which I think is getting run out of town right now because of its rank incompetence and lawless assaults on the privacy data of hundreds of millions of Americans and its unlawful summary mass firings of professional civil servants like air traffic controllers, | ||
| food and drug inspectors, pediatric cancer researchers in my district, Forest Service firefighters. | ||
| Well, anyway, they're getting run out of town now. | ||
| I don't hear a lot about Elon Musk. | ||
| He's lost some elections for my friends across the aisle. | ||
| So they're trying to let him sink into anonymity. | ||
| But he's done his damage, my friends. | ||
| He's done his damage. | ||
| Over the Department of Justice, and I've got to correct myself. | ||
| Was saying that his employee, who I can identify now as Tarak Makitcha, was responsible for slashing more than $500 million in public safety, local law enforcement, and victim assistance organizations across the country. | ||
| And although that was technically correct, more than $500 million, it really understates the gravity of this offense against public safety. | ||
| It was $811 million in grants that were terminated. | ||
| Now understand what a grievous assault this is on our system of government. | ||
| Congress passes budgets. | ||
| They are initiated here in the House of Representatives. | ||
| We voted to appropriate that money to the Department of Justice. | ||
| The House voted for it. | ||
| The Senate voted for it. | ||
| It was signed into law by the President. | ||
| The money went to the Department of Justice. | ||
| It was programmed for those purposes. | ||
| $811 million was awarded to each of those grantees. | ||
| And now we've got some reportage explaining what happened. | ||
| It all came down to this one guy, Tarak Makitcha, working for Elon Musk. | ||
| Anybody elect him around here? | ||
| Anybody confirm him to any job? | ||
| I don't think so. | ||
| But he wrote some memos under the authority of Dusk, which now I think is invalidated discredited authority if you read the opinion from the Federal District Court of Northern California on Friday night, because they remember how the Constitution works. | ||
| We don't have a fourth branch of government called Elon Musk or Tarak McKitcha. | ||
| But anyway, this guy wrote memos to the Deputy Attorney General demanding that all of these grants to law enforcement and public safety and victim assistance groups across the country in our districts be deleted. | ||
| And he wouldn't rest until they were deleted and they were deleted. | ||
| So he said he could report it to his superiors and to the White House. | ||
| Now, why aren't we using this valuable time not just to pass a mere reporting bill, which is fine, but how about an action bill? | ||
| How about a bill that restores hundreds of millions of dollars to actually promoting criminal law enforcement, public safety, aid to victims of rape and sexual assault, organizations fighting child sexual abuse across the country? | ||
|
Why One Mob Rampage Justifies Another?
00:08:07
|
||
| Why don't we do that? | ||
| Why don't we just pierce the fog of rhetoric a little bit and get down to something that's actually happening? | ||
| And then we can follow that up with what I think would be a significant symbolic statement, as Ms. McBath urges us to do. | ||
| Let's put up the plaque to honor the officers who defended us against the rampage of January 1st. | ||
| The gentleman from North Carolina, I think, tried to change the subject as if one mob rampage justifies another. | ||
| I'm against all mob violence. | ||
| I'm against all mob rampages. | ||
| I don't feel I've just got to speak out against one of them, but if I can't speak out against the one that comes to our house, who will trust me to speak out against mob violence anywhere else? | ||
| I denounce it wherever it takes place. | ||
| Under whatever guise, under any ideological auspice at all, I denounce mob violence. | ||
| But I challenge my friend from North Carolina to find me one Democratic official who incited violent insurrection or incited mob violence on that day. | ||
| Because I will tell you, this chamber voted to impeach that president who incited mob violence against us in a sweeping bipartisan vote. | ||
| Democrats and Republicans together. | ||
| And then the Senate voted 57 to 43. | ||
| The president, in his inimitable way, was able to beat the constitutional odds. | ||
| But nonetheless, commanding majorities of both chambers found that he incited violence against us in order to overthrow a presidential election he had lost by more than 7 million votes. | ||
| Find me a Democratic governor who pardoned any of the mobsters or the violent insurrectionists or people burning down buildings. | ||
| Can you find me one? | ||
| Can you find me any Democratic politician who wants to honor those people? | ||
| Can you? | ||
| Because I can show you a United States president today who seems to think that it was the rioters and insurrectionists who deserve honor and praise. | ||
| So don't give me any false analogy or false comparison. | ||
| We denounce violence everywhere. | ||
| Will our colleagues have the courage to ask for the plaque honoring the police officers who opposed the violence that came right in this chamber? | ||
| And I could hear them chanting, hang Mike Pence, hang Mike Pence. | ||
| Remember him? | ||
| He was the Republican Vice President of the United States. | ||
| And they chased him out. | ||
| And now they'd like his memory to go down that Orwellian black hole so nobody remembers him or so nobody remembers the things the Republicans said. | ||
| They called it terrorism at the time. | ||
| But now it's inconvenient. | ||
| Donald Trump doesn't want police officers being honored for the work they did defending our Constitution, our democracy, our Capitol, and the members of Congress, including people who sit on that side of the aisle, as well as the members who sit on this side of the aisle. | ||
| I thank the gentlelady for yielding. | ||
| And I'm happy to yield back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from Maryland yields. | |
| Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. | ||
| The gentlelady from Georgia reserves. | ||
| And the gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris. | ||
| Four minutes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman is recognized. | |
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| A little over one year ago, four law enforcement officers, heroes in North Carolina, lost their lives protecting the public from an armed and highly dangerous felon. | ||
| They showed up to work that morning like it was just another day, but gave the ultimate sacrifice for the Charlotte, North Carolina community. | ||
| However, instead of acknowledging the danger that police officers willingly put themselves in every day and standing behind our men and women in blue, some radical progressives on the left would rather defund the police or even abolish them entirely. | ||
| But not me and not my colleagues that are here with me today. | ||
| This National Police Week, I'm honored to stand behind our law enforcement as they keep our communities safe. | ||
| And I'm especially proud to stand today and speak on behalf of H.R. 2240, the Improving Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act. | ||
| As I read this bill, one disturbing fact caught my eye. | ||
| In 2022, 30% of the murders of police officers were unprovoked ambushes. | ||
| This is unconscionable. | ||
| As a pastor at First Baptist Church, Charlotte, North Carolina, I actually witnessed and saw families suffering and hurting of police officers that were murdered in just this way. | ||
| Police officers are community leaders and public servants who deserve the respect of the country. | ||
| Instead, it seems cold-blooded killers have been deliberately targeting our law enforcement heroes, and it's now more important than ever not to just talk, but to act. | ||
| And I'm confident that Congressman Moore's bill will accomplish just that. | ||
| Our nation's police are under constant attack, and they need Congress's steadfast support. | ||
| This bill will shine a light on the threats that law enforcement face, threats that have steeply risen in number ever since the left began its dangers defund the police rhetoric. | ||
| And it will begin the process of expanding the resources available to law enforcement officials. | ||
| I urge my colleagues today to stand with me in join with me in supporting the Improving Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act. | ||
| And let's ensure that our nation's police forces know that we have their back. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I yield back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from North Carolina yields. | |
| The gentleman from South Carolina Reserves and the gentlelady from Georgia is recognized. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to our wonderful Representative Alfred from Maryland. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentlelady is recognized. | |
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| Local law enforcement officers bravely and tirelessly work to protect our communities day in and day out. | ||
| And the situations that these law enforcement officers encounter put them, as we all know, at an increased risk of developing mental health disorders, including PTSD, depression, and anxiety. | ||
| This police week, I thank the sponsors of the bill, my colleagues across the aisle for introducing H.R. 2440, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act. | ||
| I did offer an amendment to require that it includes the Department of Justice to include recommendations on improving training programs for domestic violence cases because far too often our local law enforcement officers are at the front line of response to domestic violence cases. | ||
| These situations not only need to be handled carefully with specialized training, but they also take a toll on officers' own well-being. | ||
| While this amendment was not made in order, I rise today because I believe it is essential to address the issues of domestic violence and the mental health of our officers in a bipartisan manner. | ||
| I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle and addressing this critical need and continuing to address these issues together. | ||
| And with that, I yield back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentlelady from Maryland yields, the gentlelady from Georgia Reserves, and the gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. | |
| Mr. Speaker, I reserve and I'm prepared to close. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman reserves. | |
| The gentlelady from Georgia is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
|
Retirement Benefits Under Threat
00:02:45
|
||
| I'd like to just kind of spend a little bit more time speaking. | ||
| I have no other speakers, and so I'm just going to give myself the rest of the time, if I may. | ||
| Thank you so much. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentlelady is recognized. | |
| Thank you. | ||
| Not only are my colleagues apparently letting Doge get away with terminating the Department of Justice grant programs, but they're also attempting to rob federal law enforcement officers of their hard-earned retirement benefits. | ||
| I'd like to just let, I'd like to put on the record that, unlike other federal employees, federal law enforcement officers are eligible to retire voluntarily after serving our country for at least 20 years and reaching the age of 50 or after 25 years of service at any age. | ||
| Now, the special retirement supplement for federal officers provides roughly one-third of a federal officer's retirement benefits, bridging the financial gap between when an officer chooses to retire and when they become eligible for Social Security at age 62. | ||
| The special retirement supplement ensures financial stability for those who have dedicated their lives and their careers to protecting this country. | ||
| But our Republican colleagues, their reconciliation bill would limit the supplement only to those who reach the mandatory retirement age of 57, no matter how many years they have served. | ||
| It would also apply not just to new hires, but to all officers, to those who clearly earn the ability to claim this benefit and didn't sign up for this new rule. | ||
| The moment Trump signs the reconciliation bill into law, any officer that retires before reaching the age of 57 would lose one-third of the retirement benefits, making voluntary retirement untenable. | ||
| for every federal law enforcement officer who is or at near retirement. | ||
| Cutting the supplement would have an immediate effect on the retention of overburdened, increasingly demoralized officers across the federal government, creating an overwhelming incentive for tens of thousands of eligible officers to retire before they plan to, before this change becomes law. | ||
| But in closing, it's National Police Week, and we are honoring the brave men and women in law enforcement who put their lives online every single day to protect our communities and this nation. | ||
|
Pledging Support for Law Enforcement
00:04:07
|
||
| And I was proud to vote yes on this resolution on the House floor yesterday to express our nation's gratitude to our law enforcement. | ||
| I would also like to thank all the families for their courage and for their strength, because families of law enforcement are part of this too. | ||
| As ranking member of the crime subcommittee, I hear directly from families and officers from all across the country about the reforms that they need, that they desperately need. | ||
| And I will continue to champion bills that provide tools that help our law enforcement officers and keep them all safe because they deserve that. | ||
| To all of our officers around the country, whether you be federal, state, or local, we stand with you and we thank you for your service. | ||
| Though I really wish that we were doing so much more this week to make our officers safe or to invest in resources for your well-being, I will support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the very same. | ||
| Thank you and I yield. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentlelady from Georgia yields. | |
| The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized. | |
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| There's certainly no shortage of us who are attorneys or at least former attorneys on this floor. | ||
| So one of the things, of course, is when we hear information, we want to run it down and sometimes call correct the record. | ||
| My good friend from Maryland pointed out about some sort of cuts from Doge that would affect law enforcement. | ||
| So I immediately wanted to look at see what possibly could be talked about. | ||
| And I think what the gentleman was talking about were a couple of things. | ||
| One was a 200,000 was getting rid of a $250,000 grant funding for jailed trans inmates working with incarcerated transgender individuals providing gender affirming care to including housing and gender appropriate facilities. | ||
| Actually, I think that's a pretty good thing to get rid of where we can put more resources to help in law enforcement. | ||
| $2 million for some sort of national listening session for, as I understand, criminal defendants. | ||
| And then $695,000 for a parallel convergent mixed methods case study. | ||
| I don't even know what that means, but a parallel convergent mixed methods case study, research designed to assess the efficacy of police departments, LGBTQ liaison services. | ||
| And I think one of the things that with this reconciliation bill and with actions of President Trump is to get rid of the waste and to put the resources to helping our men and women in law enforcement. | ||
| So as we are here at National Police Week, as we're honoring police, while we have a few differences of opinion, I am at least comforted in the fact of knowing that we all on both sides of the aisle do support law enforcement, while we may disagree on a few other matters. | ||
| And with that, I yield back my time to the gentleman from South Carolina. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman yields. | |
| Gentleman from South Carolina, a reserve of South Carolina reserves. | ||
| For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia seek recognition? | ||
| I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Without objection, gentlemen, sir. | |
| Without objection, the gentleman is recognized. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| I'd like to yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Raskin. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| How much time do we have? | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman has five and a half minutes remaining. | |
| Thank you very kindly. | ||
| Well, the gentleman stirred me out of my stupor there by coming back with a couple of grants that apparently were eliminated. | ||
| I'll take his word for it. | ||
| If I did the internal math correctly, that was less than $2 million out of $811 million cut in awards that were made by the Department of Justice to local law enforcement, citizen community safety groups, and so on across the country. | ||
|
Finger Painting Law Enforcement
00:02:58
|
||
| Now, if there are certain grants that you don't want ever to go out, for example, I take it the gentleman doesn't think very highly of anything having to do with citizens who are transgender, and we differ about that apparently, because I think everybody's got civil rights and everybody's voice needs to be heard. | ||
| But in any event, then bring that up in the Appropriations Committee and let's vote that democratically. | ||
| That should not be up to one of Elon Musk's midnight riders, a computer hacker who comes in and simply decides to wipe out all of the handiwork of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate signed into law by the President and then awarded by the Department of Justice. | ||
| We do not have a fourth branch of government here, which is what the Federal District Court in Northern California was saying on Friday. | ||
| Are my colleagues aware that there have been more than 250 cases brought against the reign of lawlessness and authoritarianism brought down on America in the first five months of the Trump administration, and there are 156 preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders right now. | ||
| The Supreme Court heard a couple of hours ago the case about Donald Trump in an executive order trying to destroy birthright citizenship in America. | ||
| Every sixth grader in America knows that if you're born in America, you're a citizen of the United States. | ||
| They tried to reverse that. | ||
| That got struck down by four courts. | ||
| They call them radical left rogue judges. | ||
| Well, two of the ones who struck it down were Democratic appointees, one by President Obama, one by President Biden. | ||
| The other two were Republican appointees. | ||
| One appointed by President Bush, one appointed by President Reagan, who said that in his four decades on the bench, he had never seen a more unconstitutional law than that one. | ||
| He'd never seen an easier case than that one. | ||
| You don't have to be a lawyer to understand what's wrong with that. | ||
| You just have to know how to read. | ||
| The first sentence of the 14th Amendment says all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. | ||
| And these people are finger-painting all over the Constitution. | ||
| They're usurping the rule of law as adopted by the Congress of the United States. | ||
| They're creating new branches of government. | ||
| I'm glad that they finally ran Elon Musk out of town because he was no longer politically useful to him. | ||
| But in the meantime, we've got to deal with the wreckage. | ||
| And if he by accident did something the gentleman agrees with, bully for him. | ||
| Great. | ||
| But meantime, he's undone the will of Congress. | ||
| He's nullified and canceled hundreds of millions of dollars going out to public safety and criminal law enforcement across America. | ||
|
Data Is Incredibly Important
00:04:38
|
||
| So let's get back to the rule of law. | ||
| Let's get back to law enforcement. | ||
| I yield back to the very distinguished gentlelady from Georgia. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from Maryland yields. | |
| The gentlelady reserves, and the gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. | ||
| I reserve. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman reserves. | |
| The gentlelady from Georgia is recognized. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I am ready to close. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentlelady is recognized. | |
| Thank you. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, in closing, while I do, as I've said earlier, really support this legislation, I also call on my colleagues to stand with law enforcement by restoring these critical grants, commemorating the bravery of our officers on January 6th and every day, protecting their pay, protecting their benefits, | ||
| and all that the federal officers have earned over the course of the time that they have served their communities and served this country, and ensuring that every federal agency can continue to provide critical assistance to our state and local law enforcement. | ||
| We can do a lot better. | ||
| They deserve so much better from us. | ||
| Let's please work to do better. | ||
| And I yield. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentlelady yields. | |
| The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| Listen, this is an incredibly common sense and bipartisan piece of legislation. | ||
| I urge all of my colleagues to support it. | ||
| Law enforcement have been demonized. | ||
| They have been attacked. | ||
| They have been defunded in left-wing jurisdictions many years ago. | ||
| And I hope that that movement is forever in the dustbin of our history because we owe it to law enforcement to support them in any number of ways that we can as policymakers. | ||
| And one of the easiest ways, in my mind, is this bill. | ||
| Data is incredibly important, Mr. Speaker, and you know this firsthand. | ||
| Data is incredibly important. | ||
| And understanding these attacks on our law enforcement, how it is affected by the officer, how these things occur, where they occur, these data points are incredibly important to understand and protect our law enforcement. | ||
| And so last year, I think all of the Republicans and the vast majority of my Democrat colleagues supported this very measure. | ||
| And I hope that this year, even more Democrats will support it and that it will be signed into law because this data is incredibly important to make sure that we protect our law enforcement officers. | ||
| And this is just a small way that we can advance that initiative forward. | ||
| With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman yields. | |
| The time for debate has expired. | ||
| Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. | ||
| The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. | ||
| Those in favor say aye. | ||
| Those opposed, no. | ||
| The ayes have it. | ||
| Third reading. | ||
| The bill requiring the Attorney General to file the courts and violent taxes law enforcement officers and for other purposes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So after this one, if you want to speak. | |
| The question is on passage of the bill. | ||
| Those in favor say aye. | ||
| Those opposed, no. | ||
| The ayes have it. | ||
| And the bill is for what purpose as the gentleman from Georgia sees very carefully. | ||
| Request the yeas and the nays. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The yays and nays are requested. | |
| Those favoring a vote by the yays and nays will rise. | ||
| A sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. | ||
| Pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. | ||
| Pursuant to clause 12A of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the call of the chair. | ||
| This is the last day of legislative work for the week. | ||
| Members are wrapping up National Police Week bills, considering measures to allow federal police to buy retired guns, and to require a report from the Attorney General on attacks on law enforcement. | ||
|
Congressional Directory Guide
00:00:52
|
||
|
unidentified
|
Off the floor, negotiations continue on GOP tax and spending legislation to support President Trump's agenda. | |
| Watch live coverage of the House when lawmakers gavel back in here on C-SPAN. | ||
| Looking to contact your members of Congress? | ||
| Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory. | ||
| Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place. | ||
| This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress. | ||
| Contact information on congressional committees, the President's Cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. | ||
| The Congressional Directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's non-profit operations. | ||