We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
42 public bills, H.R. 3378- 3419; and 6 resolutions, H. Con. Res. 33; and H. Res. 409-413, were introduced.
Pages H2050-52
Reports Filed
There were no reports filed today. Speaker: Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Stutzman to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H2005
Recess
The House recessed at 11:17 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H2014
Recess
The House recessed at 1:05 p.m. and reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
Page H2021
Suspension: Proceedings Resumed
The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measure. Consideration began Tuesday, May 13th. Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act: H.R. 2215, to redesignate the Salem Maritime National Historic Site as the ``Salem Maritime National Historical Park'', by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 382 yeas to 31 nays, Roll No. 125.
Pages H2021-22
Recess
The House recessed at 3:14 p.m. and reconvened at 5 p.m.
Page H2031
LEOSA Reform Act
The House passed H.R. 2243, to amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act and provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, by a yea-and-nay vote of 229 yeas to 193 nays, Roll No. 128.
Pages H2014-21, H2031-32
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted.
Pages H2024-27
H. Res. 405, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 2240), (H.R. 2243), and (H.R. 2255) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 216 ayes to 203 noes, Roll No. 127, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 216 yeas to 204 nays, Roll No. 126.
Pages H2014-21, H2022-23
Suspensions
The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measure: Calling on elected officials and civil society leaders to counter antisemitism and educate the public on the contributions of the Jewish American community: H. Res. 352, calling on elected officials and civil society leaders to counter antisemitism and educate the public on the contributions of the Jewish American community, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 421 yeas to 1 nay, Roll No. 129.
Pages H2027-31, H2032
Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha I
The House agreed by unanimous consent to discharge from committee and agree to H. Con. Res. 24, authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha I.
Page H2033
Investigative subcommittees of the Committee on Ethics for the 119th Congress: Appointment
The Chair announced the Speaker's appointment of the following Members of the House to be available to serve on investigative subcommittees of the Committee on Ethics for the 119th Congress: Representatives Bentz, Cline, Fedorchak, Kim, Mann, Owens, Rose, Rouzer, Taylor and Yakym.
Page H2033
Quorum Calls: Votes
Four yea-and-nay votes and one recorded vote developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H2021-22, H2022-23, H2023, H2031-32 and H2032. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 155 of 208 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Morning-Hour Debate
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 3, 2025, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, this week, the President travels to the Middle East on an important trip. It is a moment of great opportunity but also serious risk. As the U.S. pursues deeper partnerships across the gulf, we must remember that American leadership cannot rest on one- off deals or delusions of grand bargains. Our ambitions cannot outpace reality.
Most importantly, Iran lurks in the background of every conversation. Tehran is itching to play spoiler. Its nuclear ambitions and proxy networks remain the chief threat to regional stability, yet we have a rare moment of leverage. Iran's economy is in shambles. Its proxies are degraded, and its air defenses have been exposed.
That is why I introduced a resolution reaffirming that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is a nonnegotiable American priority. It reinforces deterrence, clarifies expectations, and ensures congressional oversight, especially regarding any use of force.
We must not miss this moment. Iran continues to be a serious threat and the main detriment to peace in the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, there was welcomed news last week that President Trump is considering a Presidential commission on college athletics. I welcome the President's leadership because college sports are important, but college sports are also broken.
What used to be about school pride and student opportunity has turned into a chaotic, booster-fueled arms race. Regional conferences have been blown apart for television deals, Olympic sports are getting cut, and the balance between education and athletics is long gone.
This isn't the first time a President has had to step in. In 1905, it was Theodore Roosevelt who summoned the top schools to the White House to save college football from itself. He didn't kill the game; he saved it by demanding rules, safety, and common sense. We need that same leadership today, and that is why I am so pleased by President Trump's potential actions.
Let me be clear: College sports are a highly publicly subsidized enterprise. It runs on Federal exemptions, tuition subsidies, land grants, student fees, and State dollars. Yet, as public dollars prop up the system, the money is ballooning and concentrating.
According to a 2023 report from the Knight Commission, annual revenues across all FBS athletic programs are expected to reach nearly $21 billion by 2032. Here is the kicker: More than $16 billion of that is concentrated in just 54 schools. While college sports are important to the entire country, roster spots across all sports are shrinking.
That is why I introduced the Restore College Sports Act to put commonsense guardrails back into place. It restores regional conferences so student athletes aren't crisscrossing the country for absurd TV contracts. It reestablishes competitive balance so the richest programs don't write all the rules. It creates the same transparent revenue-sharing model that protects Title IX, sustains Olympic sports, and keeps student athletes, not donors and agents, at the center of college sports.
Mr. Speaker, I thank President Trump for considering this action, and I call on Congress to work together in a bipartisan fashion to save competitive college sports by restoring competitive balance across the landscape.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn in the strongest terms the attack by DOGE on the Women's Bureau at the Department of Labor, the only Federal agency representing women in the workforce.
Last week, Elon Musk's unelected, unqualified, inept team at DOGE canceled millions of dollars in grants funded through the Women's Bureau by calling them wasteful.
These terminations decimated the important work of the Women's Bureau, including programs to support survivors of gender-based violence and Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations, which has successfully expanded pathways for women to enter the workforce and lead in all industries, including the trades.
A Department of Labor spokesperson claimed that the Women's Bureau funds discriminatory DEI experiments. I would like to know why exactly they think helping women enter and succeed in the workforce is a discriminatory DEI experiment. Canceling more than $20 million in congressionally authorized funds is both illegal and unconstitutional, and we must hold DOGE and Secretary Chavez-DeRemer accountable.
Congress established the Women's Bureau 2 months before women officially gained the right to vote, 105 years ago this year. Instead of celebrating its achievements and recognizing the benefits of these grant programs, the Trump administration is trying to send us backward in time, harming millions of women in the process.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going back. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand with me in support of the Women's Bureau and the crucial opportunities and protections it provides for women in the workforce.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and congratulate two high school teams on their recent cochampionship win of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution competition.
Run by the Center for Civic Education, this competition tests the knowledge of high school students from around the country about the U.S. Constitution and American Government. Students display understanding about historical and contemporary constitutional issues, and their breadth of knowledge is incredibly impressive.
I am proud to report that both top teams are from public high schools in Oregon. Lincoln High School and Sprague High School won the national competition in Virginia after competing at the State level and then spending 3 days here in the D.C. metro area at the finals answering tough questions with confidence, intelligence, and grace.
Both teams showed deep knowledge of constitutional law and U.S. history, and this year we saw something amazing. The average team size is 21 students, but the Sprague team had only two. Impressively, the Lincoln team was mostly sophomores, but they all worked hard and it showed. A scoring anomaly resulted in both the Sprague and Lincoln teams earning the title of cochampions for the first time in the competition's history.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Center for Civic Education for making this opportunity available. I also thank the teachers and coaches who worked with the teams and these impressive students for giving us hope for the future at a time when it is desperately needed.
Please join me in congratulating Lincoln High School and Sprague High School on their cochampionship win of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution competition.
Mr. Speaker, in honor of National Police Week, I wish to recognize and honor Sergeant Mike Anderson of the Roseville Police Department for his unwavering commitment to serving and protecting the Roseville community.
Sergeant Anderson has had an extraordinary 29-year career in law enforcement with 21 of those years dedicated to the Roseville Police Department. Throughout his tenure, he has held numerous roles, including assignments in patrol, the crime suppression unit, and SWAT. He has also served as investigations sergeant, patrol sergeant, and rangemaster and instructor. In addition to his daily responsibilities, Sergeant Anderson has been a cornerstone of the Roseville-Rocklin Regional SWAT team for over 20 years, with 15 of those years as SWAT team leader.
Sergeant Anderson is known for his expertise and for being a calm, capable leader in moments of crisis. He motivates through action, leads by example, and consistently places the well-being and performance of his team above all else.
Through his skillful training and leadership, the SWAT team has experienced two decades of success through many critical incidents. The caliber of guidance and mentorship he offers is so exceptional that many officers intentionally choose to remain on the night shifts that he oversees, despite challenging hours, to work and learn under his direction. His influence and the confidence that he inspires among others has shaped generations of officers who have had the privilege of working alongside him.
Sergeant Anderson has strengthened the Roseville Police force and our community is safer as a result of his commitment to the department.
Sergeant Anderson will soon be retiring as the senior, most serving sergeant in the outstanding Roseville Police Department, which is a testament to his dedication, integrity, professionalism, and leadership. It is an honor to represent exemplary individuals like Sergeant Mike Anderson.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of California's Third Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, I thank and honor Sergeant Anderson for his nearly three decades of serving and protecting the region as a dedicated public servant.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to recognize the local law enforcement officers of southwest Washington who work around the clock to protect our community.
During my time in Congress, I have made it a priority to do ride- alongs and roundtables with local law enforcement and other first responders across the district to see firsthand their work and dedication.
These men and women don't have the luxury to view the fentanyl crisis in academic or sanitized terms. They see it in its most brutal, human scale.
I have also had the opportunity to see how we are training and supporting the next generation of officers. In August of last year, I toured the new law enforcement training center located in Clark County in my district. One of the first questions I asked the room was how many of them had children under the age of 5, and about half the room raised their hand. This makes sense, right, because they are at the beginning of their careers.
Before this new regional training center opened, these recruits would have to travel across the State, away from their families, for 5 months to complete the basic law enforcement training academy course. Now they can train closer to home, which is a game changer for recruits with new families.
The work done by law enforcement is exhausting and dangerous, yet absolutely critical. I am committed to ensuring Congress does its part to support our law enforcement partners, but it can't stop with Congress.
Law enforcement officers and their families make huge sacrifices to serve our communities and often feel like their work isn't respected or is intentionally vilified by some. You cannot substitute respect with another Federal grant or program or initiative. We need a cultural shift that values and respects the sacrifices these officers and their families make.
Mr. Speaker, I thank sincerely all of our law enforcement officers, their spouses, their families, and the communities that support them in this incredibly patriotic and challenging calling. I assure them that their work does not go unappreciated.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to recognize corrections officers who have one of the most difficult and stressful roles in our law enforcement.
I made it a priority to tour jails in my district, and the corrections officers I have met are patriotic professionals who perform an unseen and often thankless job under incredibly stressful circumstances.
When I asked these COs what their priorities are, how can I be useful, the first five times I asked the question, they kept telling me what their detainees need, what would make life better for their detainees.
Every day corrections officers see firsthand the starkest crises of our society. They deal with the most violent offenders, our most difficult mental health challenges, inmates who have been caught up in the national fentanyl crisis, and people who have generally fallen through the cracks of society.
Every day they do the hard and necessary work that makes our judicial system function and receive little to no respect or gratitude from society. It should not surprise anyone, given all this, that they have a suicide rate seven times higher than the general population and an average life expectancy of only 59 years. This is an indictment against our country.
Mr. Speaker, we must do more to support and recognize the role that corrections officers play in our communities. I, therefore, rise today to recognize and thank our corrections officers across my district for the difficult work they do and urge Congress and policymakers not to forget these law enforcement heroes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to recognize the work that the Skamania County Sheriff's Office Search and Rescue team does in my community.
Skamania County is home to the Columbia River Gorge, the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, and Mount St. Helens. Though the population of our rural county is only about 12,000, the natural beauty of my home county attracts recreational visitors from across the world.
Being in search and rescue is an unpredictable role, where you could get called to locate hikers who misread the map or relied on their phone or dig people out from an avalanche. Thus far, 2025 has been a record-setting year for search and rescue missions, with a 550 percent increase. Skamania Search and Rescue this year alone has saved an elderly woman with dementia who got lost wandering off the trail and a family with an infant who got stuck in the snow off-roading.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Skamania County Sheriff's Search and Rescue team for their dedication to ensure both residents and visitors of Skamania County are able to recreate safely in our beautiful country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to recognize Vancouver Police Officer Nick Copley. In addition to his service as a police officer, Nick Copley also served in the United States Navy.
When Officer Copley was deployed to Afghanistan, he was one of the two crane operators in his battalion. In this role, he was tasked with going to the areas where the Taliban had been pushed out, and his team would work to replace barriers with permanent concrete barriers around the base perimeter.
During his deployment, Officer Copley flew an American flag above a former Taliban base and flew that same flag from the base on September 11, 2010, and then brought it home with him. Three years later, on September 25, 2013, Officer Copley had the same American flag flown over the USS Arizona Memorial when he was stationed at Pearl Harbor.
Now a distinguished Naval officer, Officer Copley is retiring from the Navy. To recognize his service to this country, it is my honor to have that same American flag that he flew over the base in Afghanistan and Pearl Harbor flown over the U.S. Capitol.
I thank Officer Copley for dedicating himself to a career of service and representing what it means to serve his country and his community. I look forward to his continued service as a member of the Vancouver Police Department.
Mr. Speaker, I wish a good morning to northwest Florida and rise to offer a special congratulations to the Northwest Florida State College women's basketball team.
On April 1, 2025--actually the same day that I was sworn into office--the Lady Raiders took on Alabama's Shelton State Buccaneers, and took home their third national championship in 5 years, with a final score of 62-53. Their overall record this season was 32-3, which is amazing, with a conference record of 10-2, and a proud 13-0 record at home.
It takes a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to make it to the top. Having a heart for the game and for your fellow teammates goes a very long way. I am very excited about the victory of this team and how they brought it home to northwest Florida.
Congratulations to Coach Bart Walker and his coaching staff for all their hard work and leading the team to victory and instilling in them the heart of champions. I congratulate the Northwest Florida State College State championship basketball team on a job very well done. Their incredible win is inspiring. They have made their community and the State of Florida very, very proud. God bless. Go Raiders.
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to represent more than 75,000 veterans that I represent in my district in northwest Florida. Florida serves as one of the most veteran-friendly States in the entire country.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow today that I acknowledge the passing and honor the memory of one of those great heroes, Captain Allen Colby Brady of Pensacola and his outstanding service to the United States.
Captain Brady lived as a resident of Pensacola off and on for nearly 50 years, becoming a permanent resident in 1994 after marrying his wife, Dianne, in 1994. Born in 1929 into a naval family, Captain Brady committed to attend the Naval Academy and become a pilot at just 8 years old. He fulfilled that vow after graduating from Annapolis in 1951 and earned his wings in Pensacola 2 years later.
He flew combat missions in Korea, survived nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific, participated in Cold War operations during the Taiwan Strait crisis, and then played a secret role in the Bay of Pigs invasion. He flew defense of freedom throughout the world.
However, his most harrowing test came in January 1967, when he was shot down over North Korea. Allen was captured and spent more than 6 years--that is 2,237 days--as a POW in the infamous Hanoi Hilton, enduring brutal torture, unimaginable conditions, and profound isolation. He never broke. He returned with honor.
After his release in 1973, Allen didn't retire quietly. He returned to Active Duty, ultimately commanding a major Navy training wing. Upon retiring in 1979, after 32 years of service, he set sail, literally, cruising the Florida coast, living out the promise that he and his fellow POWs made to embrace life fully if they ever got home.
However, Allen's service didn't stop there. In 1980, he made a daring, unauthorized voyage to Communist Cuba to rescue refugees during the Mariel boatlift, an act of moral courage that risked his freedom once again.
In later years, Allen became a speaker, mentor, and educator. He published a book of POW stories for schools, and he made personal classroom appearances. He also authored a memoir, ``Witnessing the American Century,'' sharing insights from a life lived at the crossroads of world events.
Even in his nineties, Allen embraced new adventures as he continued to inspire students and veterans alike. Captain Brady exemplified the values of patriotism, courage, and honor.
In his words: ``We will always need people who are willing to serve their country . . . willing to give their lives defending her.'' Allen Brady was not just such a person, he embodied that call.
God bless Captain Brady and his incredible life of service and sacrifice. Katie and I, all Floridians, and this Nation offer our thoughts and prayers to
Mr. Speaker, let me first rise to welcome today our own Anaheim Police Department officers seated in the gallery. Thank you, gentlemen, for protecting our community. Thank you for being here. Thank you for taking an interest in congressional affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Lorin Griset Academy in Santa Ana for being recognized as a Model Continuation High School by the California Department of Education.
Griset Academy helps prepare students to fulfill their potential both in class, as well as in future careers.
Join me in congratulating the dedicated staff and educators at Lorin Griset Academy for a great job in preparing Orange County's next generation of leaders.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Police Week by honoring my very good friend, Santa Ana Police Chief Robert Rodriguez.
Chief Rodriguez was brought to the United States when he was 4 years old as an undocumented immigrant. He got his opportunity at the American Dream thanks to former California Governor and Republican President Ronald Reagan. He then served our country in the marines for 6 years through two wars.
Today, Chief Rodriguez is our Santa Ana chief of police. He fulfilled a lifelong dream of being an American and serving his great country.
He inspires our community. I thank him for his hard work. God bless him and God bless Santa Ana.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Goodwill Industries of Orange County for 100 years of service to our community.
Reverend John Winterbourne founded Goodwill Industries in Orange County, California, in 1924. His own home became the first clothing repair shop that expanded to include an as-is lot that essentially created Goodwill Industries throughout the country.
Please join me in thanking Goodwill Industries for 100 years of service and dedication to our community and to our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the students of Magnolia Science Academy in my district, who have achieved a tremendous milestone, qualifying for the VEX Robotics World Championship.
These students have shown that dedication and hard work does pay off. They have earned the opportunity to compete on the international stage.
Join me in celebrating these remarkable young students as they prepare for the world championship in robotics.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my very good friend, Mr. Bharat Patel, for his incredible career and contributions to our community.
In 1976, the Patel family purchased the original Peter Pan Motor Lodge in Anaheim, right across from Disneyland. Almost 50 years later, Mr. Patel's leadership has transformed this small hotel into the Castle Inn and Suites in Anaheim.
Mr. Patel is a business leader and philanthropist. He sits on the board of the California Lodging Industry Association, Visit Anaheim, and several colleges.
Bottom line, he is a Cal State Fullerton alumnus, a Titan, and I am proud of the positive changes Mr. Patel has brought to our community.
Recently, he was honored by Cypress College's Americana Awards as Citizen of the Year in Orange County. I thank Mr. Patel for his great work. He inspires and honors us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds Members that the rules do not allow references to persons in the gallery.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the extraordinary accomplishments of the Salem High School debate team, which recently claimed its second consecutive VHSL Class 4 State championship with a decisive 32-8 victory over Dominion High School. This victory marks the 20th State title for legendary Head Coach Mark Ingerson, 18 in speech and forensics and now 2 in debate.
Salem's dominance was on full display as the team captured individual State championships in three of four events. Senior captain Claire Rawlins led the way with a perfect 6-0 record in Lincoln-Douglas debate, tackling the timely question of artificial general intelligence. With four career State titles and a remarkable 29-3 record, Claire's leadership is unmatched.
In public forum, seniors U.V. Singh and Grayson Smith went undefeated, while sophomore Dylan Hancock earned Salem's first-ever congressional debate title with near-perfect speaker scores. Several other Spartans, including medalists Rebekah Steinweg, Luke Stovall, Kody Hinnant, and Abby Jones also delivered outstanding performances.
Also competing for Salem were Charlie Bain, 12th grade, and Nesa Garcia-Perez, 10th grade, in congressional debate, and Leah Johnson, 10th grade, and Ashley Toapanta, 10th grade, in policy debate. Students London Basham, Harper Rocovich, and Caroline Loveday also competed admirably at the regional and State semifinal levels.
Special thanks go to Assistant Coach Rachel Wurster for her guidance and commitment to these students.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor the Salem High School debate team for their achievements, integrity, and the example they set for academic excellence in Virginia and beyond.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Skyline High School wrestling team on winning the 2025 Class 3 State wrestling championship, the first State title in the school's history.
Under the leadership of Head Coach Kyle Symons and Assistant Coaches Joe DiVello, Brian Scott, Alan Kroh, Jon DiVello, and Josiah Huston, Skyline's 13 wrestlers delivered a historic performance, scoring 218 points and sending six athletes to the finals.
Congratulations to individual State champions Paden Alyea, Parker Withers, and Josiah Sykes. In addition to the State champions, medalists also included Jacob Buffum, Vinny DiVello, Joey DiVello, D.J. Mabie, Cody Salomon, and Carter Huston, with strong performances from Cody Davis, Aiden Boyles, Ryan Williams, and Tytus Drake.
Skyline defeated two-time defending champion Staunton River by 39.5 points, a testament to their talent, teamwork, and resilience.
Thanks to Coach Symons, his staff, and the incredible Front Royal community, Skyline has made history. I am proud to honor their achievements today.
Congratulating the Spotswood High School Boys' Basketball Team
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the incredibly special achievement of the Spotswood High School Boys' basketball team, which captured the State championship title for the first time in 32 years.
This remarkable victory is a testament to their talent, hard work, and perseverance. Under the leadership of Coach Edwards, rightfully named VHSL Class 3A Coach of the Year, these young men came mentally prepared and demonstrated the power of teamwork and determination to bring home the school's second State trophy.
Their success has united our community in pride and celebration. We congratulate the following team players: Cam Pacheco, senior guard named Player of the Year; Tyler Sprague, named first-team Class 3A all- State; Landon Davis; Rylan Baker; Reese Fisher; Will Parlee; Tsenat Tesfay; Cayden Price; Camden Langridge; Colin Regan; and Brennyn Stobbs.
We congratulate the Spotswood Trailblazers on this historic win. They
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to recognize the brave men and women in law enforcement who serve our communities, our Commonwealth, and our Nation with honor and courage.
These officers are our friends and neighbors, men and women who wake up each day, put on the badge, and willingly face danger to keep others safe.
Earlier this week, in Bridgewater, I joined members of local law enforcement and Commonwealth's Attorney Marsha Garst to honor those who lost their lives in the line of duty. Since 1776, nearly 27,000 officers have made the ultimate sacrifice, including 165 last year and 25 so far this year. Their service and their sacrifice must never be forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, the men and women of law enforcement represent the very best of our communities. We are safer because of their commitment, and we are grateful for their service. To every officer who serves, we thank them, support them, and will continue to stand with them.
Mr. Speaker, last week was National Small Business Week, a time to celebrate the millions of small businesses that form the foundation of our economy and our communities. These men and women aren't just entrepreneurs. They are job creators, innovators, and the embodiment of the American Dream.
House Republicans and President Trump are fighting to make sure they have the tools they need to thrive. That starts with making the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent. Those tax cuts are critical for small businesses, with over 26 million relying on the 20 percent deduction to grow, invest, and hire.
I hope we keep working to ensure small businesses can continue driving American innovation and prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump was elected with a mandate to improve the lives of hardworking Americans, to lower housing costs, to make groceries, childcare, and medicine more affordable, and to help our seniors get the care they need.
What has he done instead? He has used his position to inflate his own wealth and pad the pocketbooks of billionaire donors, all at the expense of the very people who elected him.
Unlike every single President before him, Donald Trump has refused to divest his business interests. He didn't even put them in a blind trust. Instead, he handed them over to his family, who continues to profit.
In the past year alone, Donald Trump has doubled his fortune from $2.3 billion to $5.1 billion. He now has over $5 billion. How is he doing that? By treating public office like a personal business opportunity.
Crypto investments make up $2.9 billion of the Trump family's net worth. Just days after the inauguration, Trump announced a Trump meme coin used to funnel money into his and his family's pockets. Now, the Trump family crypto mining scheme is going public as their payouts grow larger.
This is more than a conflict of interest. It is blatant corruption. He is now considering accepting a $400 million jet from Qatar dubbed a ``palace in the sky.'' How is this even ethical? Even some of my Republican colleagues agree that not only is this wrong, but it is a national security risk.
As a Member of Congress, I can't even accept a gift of more than $50, let alone $400 million. It is a slap in the face of millions of people who work long hours just to put food on the table and afford the roofs over their heads.
He isn't looking out for the best interests of the American people. He is only looking for what is good for the Trump business.
While House Republicans are out here snatching SNAP benefits away from children, Trump is making sure his billionaire buddies get higher tax breaks.
While families stress over how to make ends meet with high costs, Trump is flaunting hotels and golf courses.
While House Republicans debate which critical funding to cut, Donald Trump is raking in the excess to expand his personal empire.
Donald Trump is making a mockery of public office by continuing to enrich himself at the taxpayers' expense. If a Democrat were in the White House, my friends across the aisle would be losing their minds right now. Wrong is still wrong, regardless of which party this President belongs to.
We need to put an end to Donald Trump's pay-for-play political gifts for the sake of our reputation, our democracy, and our future.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here with you this morning to talk about the good news. Every day, I hear in so many newscasts that somehow the sky is falling. Let's get to the facts about what is actually happening in our economy and, most importantly, how America is moving in the right direction.
Gas prices are down. Inflation, despite all the worry of the last month, was held in check. Food prices are down. The border is secure. Enlistments are up. Respect is back around the world.
Look at the scenes we are seeing overseas and the respect the United States enjoys once again. Peace is on the horizon, both in Ukraine and, of course, now that we have negotiated a deal with India and Pakistan.
This is about promises kept and about leadership met. That is why I am so excited to see America back again.
When we look at a lot of these things, one of the things that is so refreshing, that so many people tell me about back at home, is that the President of the United States is finally talking directly to the American public. He actually talks to the press. He takes questions. He illuminates what he is working on and why he is pushing different policies.
This is what is called open government. For the last 4 years, we have seen behind-the-scenes maneuvering. Now, we see open government and not just in talk but in action.
I know there has been some criticism of DOGE, and nothing is ever perfect. Let's be candid here. Mr. Speaker, it is your money. You deserve to know where every single dollar is spent. That is all DOGE is doing, in addition to making recommendations on how we can actually save money.
In case everyone hasn't noticed, we are running a deficit of $1 trillion, let alone over $36 trillion in overall debt. When I hear the other side talk about these different adjustments that might be made, what solutions have they offered other than higher taxes, that we need more money? There is plenty of money here in Washington, D.C. Let's figure out how to spend it in a smarter way.
That is all DOGE is trying to say. One of the smartest people in the world is literally saying there are some alternatives we might want to take into consideration on how the real business world works, as opposed to what happens in Washington, D.C.
That is why a lot of us new folks ran for office. Back at home, we actually balanced budgets. We are forced to work with a balanced budget amendment. Here, money just flows. If we dare cut spending in any possible way, somehow we are seen as heartless. I don't buy that.
For years, they talked about prescription drug changes. Guess what? The President did it. He didn't talk about it. He acted, and it is such a refreshing change. Again, he kept promises made on the campaign trail as opposed to the bait and switch.
Mr. Speaker, this is what American Government should be all about and why I am proud to work with the President every single day, trying to figure out how we actually reduce the size
Here is the other refreshing thing. He talked about reducing Social Security taxes during the campaign. Guess what? If you make under $75,000, you are going to have a nice tax cut if you are on Social Security. Let's remember that is on a tax you have already paid.
Second, he talked about the idea of no tax on tips. Again, this is in the proposal we are putting forth. That is not Elon Musk getting breaks. That is not some rich billionaire getting a break. These are everyday, working Americans who make this country operate every single day.
It is a welcome change to what we saw over the last 4 years, when they just kind of told people what they were doing behind the scenes but never actually addressed the public directly on it.
I want to say one last thing. I was here last night. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor of serving in the chair where you are. For a long time, I heard a Member from the other side talk about tax cuts for the rich. Guess what? The tax rate for the rich is staying the same. It is 37 percent now. It is going to be 37 percent when we pass this bill.
That is not a tax cut. Get it straight. They are on the same level. They are in a situation where they are paying high taxes. Mr. Speaker, think about 37 percent. Thirty-seven percent of every hour and 37 percent of every dollar you earn goes to the government in that regard.
There is no tax cut for the rich. It is simply keeping the current tax rate. I wish the other side would recognize that. This is not a tax cut.
Finally, I will end with this, Mr. Speaker. The issue of China is very important. As we know, once they joined the WTO many years ago, they were supposed to play by the rules. We were all supposed to be on a level playing field. Instead, what they have done is abuse the privilege of being in the WTO, the World Trade Organization. They steal our technology. They pollute the world. They still have slave labor today. It is an unlevel playing field.
What does President Trump do? He put the pressure on them, and they capitulated right away. We brought down the rates, and we have a more logical agreement. I think that, with the good work of our Secretary of the Treasury, we will actually put it in order.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address the American public about what is really going on in our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce as legislation President Trump's executive order for the most-favored-nation status on drug pricing.
My legislation will codify President Trump's executive order, which basically says that Americans should not pay more for drugs than people in other countries and other parts of the world.
Right now, we are paying two to three times more for our drugs than people in other industrialized nations. This executive order, codified by the legislation, will allow our Cabinet Secretaries to put pressure on Big Pharma and make sure that they are not price gouging and will allow for the importation of cheaper drugs.
Why do we need the legislation? The reality is that Big Pharma will sue over the executive order, like they did in the previous Trump administration. In the previous administration, they managed to kill the executive order. The only way we can stand up to Big Pharma is to codify legislation, which the President wants to do in an executive order.
Here is the deal. If I can cross the aisle and support President Trump's executive order and legislation, every Republican should be willing to cross the aisle and support my legislation.
It is a pretty simple test. Are we going to stand in this body with the $16 billion that Big Pharma spent on lobbying, or are we going to stand with the American people? We will know that answer based on how many cosponsors we get for my legislation that simply codifies Donald Trump's executive order.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the cruel budget cuts on Medicaid and NIH. I don't want to sensationalize. I just want to give some of the facts.
The Republican budget would cut $715 billion from Medicaid. They are going to freeze this thing called a provider tax, which means that the Federal Government is going to give $600 billion less to hospitals across this country.
That is going to mean, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office, that almost 8.6 million people will lose their insurance. It is going to mean that many hospitals won't be able to offer services in physical therapy and mental health counseling. It is going to mean, unfortunately, that rural hospitals close.
Don't take my word for it. Take the word of Senator Josh Hawley, who represents the State of Missouri. He said that these Medicaid cuts would be a total betrayal by the President and the Republican Party of the working class.
I never thought I would be quoting Josh Hawley, but everyone should read his op-ed. He was pretty clear that these cuts would be devastating for working families.
Look at the cuts to the NIH. A report released today by the Senate says there is already a 31 percent decrease in cancer research in this country. The NIH has been decimated with 30 percent effectiveness and almost a 40 percent cut. This is money that goes not just into cancer research but into Alzheimer's research and Parkinson's research.
We used to have a bipartisan consensus in this country that we did not cut Medicaid, that we did not cut medical research, and that we did not give more tax breaks in my district in Silicon Valley, to the billionaires in my district, at the expense of medical research and the working class.
Mr. Speaker, I hope people in this body will reconsider the cruel cuts to Medicaid.
I hope people in this body will reconsider the cruel cuts to Medicaid, the cruel cuts to NIH, and tax the billionaires in my district a little more so we don't have to cut these essential programs.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce our winners today for our second annual Missouri's Fourth Congressional District speech competition for 2025. This is something we started last year here in this very Chamber, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to maybe adopt this in their district to try to re-instill patriotism into our great Nation.
Our prompt this year is: What does it mean to stand for freedom here at home and abroad?
Our first winner is Taylor Olendorff who is in the 11th grade at Glasgow High School.
Taylor wrote this:
Our next winner is Grey Landreth, who is in the 11th grade at Waynesville High School.
Grey wrote:
Our next winner is Lauryn Lercher, who is also an 11th grader at Waynesville High School.
Lauryn wrote:
I am extremely proud of these young people. They are talented, smart, and patriotic Americans who want our country to be better. Let us all strive in this body no matter what side of the aisle we are on to make that happen.
Mr. Speaker, I will continue at a later date with our remaining winners.
Again, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt the congressional speech contest to build patriotism among our young people in the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, as we speak, House Republicans are finalizing an extreme budget plan that includes the largest cut to Medicaid in our country's history.
This is an outright assault on the healthcare of nearly 14 million Americans, including over 370,000 people in my district, California's 29th.
Additionally, hospitals like Olive View Medical Center in Sylmar, where over 70 percent of patients rely on Medicaid, will suffer, and services at health centers throughout my district, including El Proyecto del Barrio and Northeast Valley Health Corporation will be cut.
Republicans' attacks on Medicaid means Americans, including millions who are already struggling to keep up with the rising cost of living, will be forced to pay more for healthcare.
Republicans continue to show that they have no plans to make life easier for anyone who is not a billionaire. In fact, while the rest of the country gets sicker and poorer, Republicans are set to give their billionaire donors new tax breaks.
Protecting Medicaid is essential to our communities. That is why House Democrats and I are demanding an up-or-down vote to protect it.
I call on my Republican colleagues to join House Democrats in signing our discharge petition to protect Medicaid for their constituents and healthcare for children, seniors, and the disabled in their district.
Mr. Speaker, this week we should be celebrating the 75th anniversary of the National Science Foundation and the countless investments it has made to propel our country ahead in the technological race.
However, since the start of the Trump-Musk administration, the NSF has been in its crosshairs. In total, Elon Musk, DOGE, and this administration have terminated over 1,400 meritorious grants totaling more than $1 billion in funds.
Some of the projects that these funds would have supported include giving middle school students opportunities to use math and design to address agricultural issues; identifying the use of deepfakes and curbing the spread of misinformation; and supporting and training the next generation of quantum technicians.
Cuts to these programs, and many more, came with no transparency, little communication, and zero accountability.
My colleagues on the Science Committee have repeatedly demanded that the administration answer for their actions, even as recently as this week. Each time we were met with radio silence.
This administration needs to answer for its unprecedented attack and how it wiped out decades of progress for science, including decades of progress for diversifying the STEM workforce.
This week, we should be celebrating the advancements NSF has contributed to over the past 75 years and looking forward to a bright and innovative 75 more years. Instead, we are fighting to save it from the chaotic, reckless, and destructive actions of this administration.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my thoughts on the dilemmas that we face here in Congress.
Watching what is happening not only here at home and here in Congress but also around the world, we have a great opportunity in front of us. We can be not only strong here at home, but we can also be strong abroad. President Trump is showing that as he travels today in the Middle East.
I just want to remind us all that we have threats around the world who are watching the United States on a daily basis.
I was recently over in Syria, and there was a great opportunity there that President Trump has addressed by lifting the sanctions on the Syrian people, but the Syrian people know that America can be trusted. Now, let's take that opportunity and help not only them, because that is going to help stabilize the region in the Middle East and it is going to help our ally, Israel, it is going to help our other allies who are participating in the Abraham Accords. I want to applaud President Trump for what he is doing.
However, to see how the people in the Middle East and others around the world who are there have respect for our President is refreshing, to know that they know he is going to do what he says he is going to do.
He is a strong leader. He is one who is willing to sit down and talk to anyone. He is not afraid to sit down and talk to anyone. He has the American people behind him. He has the American economy behind him.
Look at what he is doing with China right now, Mr. Speaker. We all know that China is the threat that we are concerned about the most. We also know that others around the world don't want to do business with China because of the way they operate. They manipulate their currency. They take advantage of their own people, and they don't respect the environmental standards that we do.
What President Trump is doing is truly remarkable. He is resetting the national stage, the global stage, for the United States of America and for the American people. The tariff policy that he has implemented is bringing people to the table.
People ask: Why are people wanting to talk to President Trump in the Middle East as he is there visiting?
They see how much they want to get his ear. It is because he has reset the table and said: The American people are going to be put first, no longer are we going to continue to supplement, subsidize, and let other countries take advantage of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about our budget. We here in Congress have a greater opportunity and a responsibility to be sure that we move towards a balanced budget and reduce our debt and deficits.
I would encourage all of us, Republican and Democrats, to realize we are spending more money than what we make. Mr. Speaker, $1 trillion goes towards our interest each year. That means $1 trillion doesn't go towards helping the American people.
Also, we are in deficit spending. Trillions of dollars are going to the national debt. I was first elected to Congress in 2010. The debt was $9 trillion. In 2017, I left for a period of time, it
Hardworking Americans are watching what we are doing. They are working hard.
Are we working hard for them?
We need to come to the table with this reconciliation package. I want everybody--we should all be at the table and realize that our healthcare costs are out of control. President Trump is already showing leadership on this. If the healthcare industry can't get its act together and lower the costs, then we are going to have to address it. It is no longer a free market in healthcare.
So I believe that we, as Congress, are going to have to start taking measures to be sure that the cost isn't just continually passed on to the American people and driving our debt further and further.
I would challenge the healthcare industry: Start doing it now; start lowering the cost.
We know healthcare costs in this country are out of control. Medicaid is the one that is now paying for it, and more and more people have been forced on to Medicaid. This goes back to ObamaCare. We were told by the Democrats that ObamaCare was going to fix our healthcare problems. Look where we are at today, Mr. Speaker. It is worse today than what it was back in 2008 and 2009 when ObamaCare was passed.
This is our opportunity to realize we have to cut spending in Washington. Let's make sure we take care of our men and women in uniform, but let's address the healthcare costs that are truly subjugating our Federal budget.
Mr. Speaker, in recognition of National Police Week, and on behalf of New York's Fourth Congressional District, I am proud to stand here today to honor our brave men and women in law enforcement. Every day, our officers are on the front lines of the most urgent public safety challenges in service to our community.
When disaster strikes and people are in need, our law enforcement officers are the first to respond. Despite the risks, the long hours, and the constant stress, hundreds of thousands of officers wake up each day, put on their badge, and answer the call. They do it for us, for our loved ones, and for our communities.
This week serves as a solemn reminder of the dangers that our officers face daily. Without law enforcement, we would not enjoy the security we often take for granted. With courage and with bravery, our officers run toward danger every day to keep us and our loved ones safe.
Today, we honor Nassau County's own who gave their lives in the line of duty. Among them are Officers Erick Contreras, Christopher Cizmarik, Kevin Canavan, and Philip Schifini of the Nassau County Police Department who bravely served our community on 9/11, one of the darkest days in American history.
In the aftermath of the worst terrorist attack on American soil, they are among the brave first responders who ran toward danger, working tirelessly among the toxic rubble at Ground Zero. Years later, all four would tragically lose their lives caused by the toxins that they were exposed to in their heroic efforts. This is a painful reminder of the lasting cost of their selfless service.
Unfortunately, thousands of our heroic law enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency personnel who bravely answered the call on the darkest day in our Nation's history continue to suffer from life- threatening cancers, respiratory diseases, and other debilitating conditions from the toxins at Ground Zero.
That is why I was proud to help reintroduce the bipartisan 9/11 Responder and Survivor Health Funding Correction Act, which would permanently fix the current funding shortfalls in the World Trade Center Health Program.
We owe it to our 9/11 first responders to ensure that the programs they rely on will be fully funded and fully staffed.
In addition, last year, we also lost Officer Jonathan Diller who proudly served with the NYPD. Tragically, he was killed last year while conducting a routine traffic stop in Queens.
In just 3 years on the force, Detective Diller made over 70 arrests and was honored with three Excellent Police Duty medals. His colleagues remember him as a bright, positive presence, always eager to learn, deeply dedicated, and truly passionate about the job he loved.
The names I mentioned are not just names on a list. They were fathers, brothers, sons, and friends. They were pillars in their department and in their communities, whose courage will never be forgotten, and their sacrifice will never be in vain.
On behalf of all of Long Island, we will never forget those who laid down their lives in service to others. As we mark Police Week, may God bless the officers who gave up their lives to keep Americans safe and may He give their loved ones comfort.
Mr. Speaker, I thank, honor, and stand with all of our officers, past, present, and future.
Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, unbought, unbossed, and unafraid.
Mr. Speaker, I rise, driven by conscience, to embrace the moral imperative to speak truth not only to power but to also speak truth about power.
I rise today to acknowledge, driven by conscience, what the world is witnessing as we see the collective punishment being imposed upon Palestinians in Gaza.
I rise to say that this level of punishment is something that is intolerable and has to be addressed.
I rise to say that not only is there collective punishment, there is ethnic cleansing taking place in Gaza.
I rise to say that, at some point, we in this Congress have to take a stand against the injustice being perpetrated against innocent Palestinian men, women, and especially children.
This level of injustice is something that this country has always stood against, but we find ourselves today standing with Mr. Netanyahu and the government that is bringing shame to the country of Israel. Israel should never do what it despises. I believe that the country of Israel would despise this level of punishment, this level of injustice being perpetrated upon another country. Yet, we find today, under Mr. Netanyahu's leadership, Israel is gaining a reputation as a pariah country.
Mr. Speaker, to add insult to this grave injury, the United States of America, by and through President Donald John Trump, is aiding and abetting by simply having him conclude that somehow Gaza should become a resort of a sort and that the Palestinians would be moved to some other place. That is a form of nouveau ethnic cleansing.
I do not support it, and I want the world to know that if in this bill, this big, beautiful bill that the President would have us sign off on that I am already antithetical to, if there is money in that bill to support the continued ethnic cleansing, the continued inhumanity that is taking place against the Palestinians, I cannot support that. I will not vote to send more money to see innocent men, women, and especially children slaughtered the way it is taking place right before our very eyes.
The unfortunate thing is there are too many among us who are afraid to speak up. I refuse to be among those who at this time are challenging controversy, who would sit and cower. I am going to take a stand not because it benefits me personally but because conscience says we cannot allow these injustices to go unpunished. I am driven by conscience to say that I won't be supporting sending any additional dollars to Israel, having already sent and voted for more than $50 billion.
Nobody can accuse me of not being supportive of Israel. I have supported it, but I can't support the Netanyahu administration and what it is doing to the country of Israel. I can't support what is happening in my country as our President would embrace this ethnic cleansing.
This is the hour of decision. This is the time for every person of good will to make a decision. I stand for peace in Palestine and the two-state solution.
There are those who say that there is no plan for the interregnum, what we call the day after. Mr. Netanyahu does have a plan. It is to take all of Palestine. It is to take all of Gaza. It is to take the West Bank. He has a plan. Don't assume that because he is going in without our permission that he doesn't have a plan; he does.
My plan is to vote against any additional funds to the State of Israel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, this weekend marks a very important anniversary in our Nation's history. On May 18, we celebrate the 60th birthday of Head Start. I take this time to acknowledge the leaders and advocates from the YMCA of Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia's largest Head Start provider.
Through the years, my office has developed an outstanding partnership with the YMCA of Metropolitan Atlanta as we work hand in hand to serve our children. Next week, the supporters of Head Start from across Metropolitan Atlanta will gather to wish a happy birthday to this critically important Federal program.
Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago, President Lyndon Baines Johnson spoke from the Rose Garden to announce the opening of 2,000 child development centers across the country.
Project Head Start was developed as a community-driven initiative to ensure that children born into poverty would not remain there for the rest of their lives. In order to get a good head start on the future, children would receive preschool training to get them ready for school. They would receive medical and dental care. Their parents would receive counseling on how to provide the best environments for them at home.
Mr. Speaker, 60 years later, Head Start's legacy continues to make America proud. This Federal program has served nearly 40 million American children. From classrooms to the kitchen table, Head Start walks alongside our families and their young children to serve them through the four pillars of every Head Start program, from education, health services, family involvement, and wraparound services.
The benefits of Head Start are clear. Children who attend Head Start are more likely to complete high school and more likely to enroll and complete college. They are less likely to have run-ins with the law, less likely to enter foster care, and less likely to experience poor health.
I am proud to serve in Congress with notable Head Start alumni, such as my colleagues Representative Tony Gonzales, Teresa Leger Fernandez, Andre Carson, Jahana Hayes, and of course, Georgia's very own Senator Raphael Warnock.
Sadly, over the last 60 years, the transformational legacy of Project Head Start seems to have been forgotten and its future has faced recent threats by many of the Republican colleagues and the Trump administration. Just last month, a leaked Republican budget proposed a complete elimination of funding for Head Start. In Georgia alone, over 22,000 children would stand to lose out on the opportunity to participate in this life-changing and transformative program.
As a mother who fights for the safety and success of every child in America, I will not be silent in the face of these attacks. That is why I have been standing up and sounding the alarm, working to educate people back home about what these cuts would mean for our community, not only in Georgia but all across the Nation. Georgia is facing a childcare crisis. At a time when access to childcare is severely limited, cuts to Head Start would impact not just the lives of the children and their families but our entire communities.
Head Start is a core component of our local economy, and without access to this option, many parents would be forced out of their jobs. Head Start affords working families the peace of mind that their children will be safe, healthy, and well cared for during the day.
Just as President Johnson did, we are continuing to fight for investments and opportunities for our children so that they have the tools necessary to achieve their highest ambitions. Federal investment in the foundational development of our children must remain our national priority.
As we prepare to wish Head Start a happy 60th birthday, I call on all Georgians and all Americans across this country to take action and speak out in support of our children. What we do today matters a great deal for the future of our next generation.
It is my hope and my prayer that 60 years from now this body will be comprised of many more Head Start alumni, living proof that this program must continue.
Mr. Speaker, I recently wrote a letter to Secretary Noem and Secretary Rubio, which I will share with my colleagues.
``I write today to express my grave concern over the administration's apparent misuse of obscure provisions in our Nation's immigration laws to deport or detain indefinitely individuals without due process. Independent of whether a noncitizen is guilty of what they are being accused, I fear these actions are setting a bad precedent that undermine the American justice system, runs contrary to the letter and the spirit of the U.S. law, and pose a risk to American citizens at home and abroad.
``The Fifth Amendment provides that all persons in the United States are entitled to due process of law, including, at minimum, notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decisionmaker. Contrary to this constitutional protection, the administration has decided to leverage exceptions in the law, such as invoking the foreign policy bar of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and/or the Enemies Alien Act of 1798 as its reasoning for detaining or deporting individuals without due process.
``The foreign policy bar of the INA states that if the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe an alien's entry, proposed activities, presence, or activities in the United States would have `potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States, that person can be excluded or deported from the United States.'
``Similarly, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 permits summary deportations during times of war and was last invoked during World War II. These provisions now have novelly been used during peacetime as grounds to send Department of Homeland Security agents to the homes of individuals with varied alien status, including permanent residents and asylum seekers, arrest them, and either detain them indefinitely or forcibly deport them. Lawyers representing the subjects have been denied access to their clients as well as access to the warrants and other official documents. Judicial orders have been blatantly ignored and courts denied access to potentially evidentiary information.
``I am concerned these actions by the administration are simply a trial balloon to expand Presidential authority without judicial or legislative oversight in order to detain individuals at their will or discretion. The constitutional checks and balances and our Bill of Rights have been the envy of the free world and a warning to dictators everywhere that a nation can be strong and secure and at the same time show forbearance in the administration of justice. Seeing the erosion of these concepts in our own Nation is disheartening, to say the least, and a dangerous precedent to entertain for any free people.
``It is my responsibility to speak out, not because I agree with the affected individuals or sanction acts for which they are accused, but because if we wish to live in a democratic society, we
Mr. Speaker, President Donald Trump has begun the first trade trip of his second term, announcing a historic agreement with Saudi Arabia and others to invest $1.4 trillion in America, creating jobs.
More historic foreign policy wins are expected as President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio continue their trip now to Qatar and then UAE.
Courageously, President Donald Trump announced yesterday he is lifting sanctions on Syria to provide the country a ``chance at greatness.'' Sanctions were imposed on the murderous Assad dictatorship, which in November declared: I was an enemy of the state, and weeks later the dictator fled to Moscow.
Today was a historic meeting between President Trump and Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, as arranged by Saudi Arabia and Turkiye, with the opportunity to expel Russian bases from 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, hosting murderous dictators.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in your defense and in defense of all of your fellow Medicaid beneficiaries.
Now before you say, wait a minute, Medicaid is for poor people, and I am not poor. Here is the thing: If you cut Medicaid, community health centers shut down, which means that instead of preventative care, folks go to emergency rooms. If you ever need urgent medical attention, and there is an ER bed available, you are a Medicaid beneficiary.
If you cut Medicaid, public school kids with special needs won't get the targeted resources that they need. If you are a kid or if you are the parent of a kid who is getting help from a teacher who is not otherwise overwhelmed by their workload, then you are a Medicaid beneficiary.
If you cut Medicaid, a whole lot of hospitals will close. If you have an operating hospital within driving distance of your home, congratulations, you are a Medicaid beneficiary.
Medicaid benefits all of us. Yet, the Republican plan that they are debating would cut that program by $700 billion, making us all sicker, more vulnerable, and making sure that people die. However, at least they can tell Donald Trump that they gave him a tax cut.
I hope they are proud of themselves because no one else is.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn President Trump's attack on knowledge and on history.
Last week, he fired our beloved Librarian of Congress. He fired the head of the U.S. Copyright Office for perhaps writing a report that his tech billionaire backers didn't agree with. He has cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and for the National Endowment for the Humanities. This is cutting funding for important programs that tell our history, that tell our culture across the United States.
In New Mexico, we are proud of our diverse, and often conflicting and difficult, but always fascinating history and culture. I ask President Trump why is he afraid of the complexities and the brilliance of our history?
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2240, Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2243, Leosa Reform Act; and Providing For...
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule providing for consideration of three pieces of legislation--H.R. 2240, H.R. 2243, and H.R. 2255--which will all be considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees. Additionally, the rule provides each with a motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are here in Washington this week to continue to work on behalf of the American people. This is, in fact, Police Week, but we have been busy this year, this Congress delivering for the American people.
In this Congress so far, we have passed legislation to secure our elections, H.R. 222, the SAVE Act; hold rogue activist judges accountable, H.R. 1526; bring transparency to institutes of higher education, H.R. 1048; make changes to our border with the Laken Riley Act and the HALT Fentanyl Act; and to repeal the Biden-era harmful environmental regulations by passing what we call Congressional Review Acts to undo the damage of the Biden administration.
As Republicans continue to work on behalf of the American people and finalize the reconciliation products we are working on currently, we are also here to recognize National Police Week and the thousands of law enforcement officers who wake up every day to step on that thin blue line to defend and protect us.
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation which designated May 15 as Peace Officer Memorial Day, and the week in which that date falls as Police Week.
Yesterday, my staff and I got the opportunity to welcome police officers from New Braunfels, Texas, and hear about the challenges they face every day. I talk to the men and women in blue virtually every day in the district that I represent, as I know many of my colleagues do.
My grandfather was the chief of police of a small west Texas town called Sweetwater. I was blessed to work in the United States Attorney's office and the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas, working every day with law enforcement. What they do matters for the peace and security of our country. Our Republic depends on having security on our streets.
There are thousands of stories that I can share about the daily heroism of law enforcement officers across the country, hundreds I could share even in the district I represent.
On February 16, 2024, Austin Police Department officers Dalton Schroeder and Jason Wright responded to 4-year-old William Martinez Romero, who was choking. The officers quickly jumped into action. Body cam footage shows Officer Schroeder run to his cruiser to grab an antichoking device he bought with his own money to be prepared for situations just like this, while Officer Wright started supporting William with back blows. They saved his life that day.
We must also remember that Police Week honors fallen peace officers, including one officer who died in the line of duty, Austin Police Department Senior Officer Jorge Pastore died in action November 11, 2023, responding to a domestic violence call in South Austin. Hostages were held inside a home, and when officers attempted to enter, gunfire started to go off. The SWAT team was called in to help distract the suspect, one being Officer Pastore, who was trying to rescue the victims.
I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say we couldn't be more excited to welcome tens of thousands of law enforcement officers from around the country to D.C. this week.
Let's be clear: House Republicans and President Trump are mobilized to restore order and sanity in the United States, something that had been lacking for years.
I remember the days, as I know my colleagues do, in 2020 when there were fires and destruction rampant across the country, as our cities were being burned to the ground and law enforcement was being targeted. It was unacceptable.
There are Members of this body, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who were encouraging it. They were undermining our law enforcement officers, making it more difficult for them to carry out their jobs, who were challenging them. It was important that we stood by them, and it is important now that the President and Republicans are standing by our law enforcement officers.
Americans suffered due to the amplification of that extreme rhetoric against law enforcement. The homicide rates stayed significantly higher through 2022 after massively skyrocketing in the wake of 2020.
The rule before us today is another step in helping law enforcement officers across the Nation which, after 4 years of a Biden-run Department of Justice targeting police departments, should be a welcome relief to our men and women in blue.
This week we will consider three pieces of legislation to support our brothers and sisters in law enforcement. H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025, which would allow Federal law enforcement officers the opportunity to purchase the service weapons they used before obtaining a new one; H.R. 2243, the LEOSA Reform Act, which amends the Gun-Free School Zones Act to provide an exemption for law enforcement officers certified under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act to carry a concealed firearm in a gun- free school zone; and H.R. 2240, Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, which would require the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress that includes data on attacks on law enforcement.
These bills are widely supported by law enforcement groups. The Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs of America, National Association of Police Organizations, National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, and Sergeants Benevolent Association of the NYPD sent a letter on March 25, 2025, to the House Judiciary Committee urging support of these bills and advancement to the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, as every day, I stand in honor of our police and our law enforcement. I often say to those who serve that to serve is an act of love. I recognize the love of those who step up to put their lives on the line and to put their lives in a place of danger to protect us. I honor that service and that love.
Today, like last night, I heard an outrageous lie about which party supports law enforcement. Let's look at
Trump's budget doesn't support local law enforcement. It hurts them.
In my rural district, local law enforcement actually needs more support. I am outraged when Republicans say Federal help is duplicative, which is what they said last night in the Rules Committee.
I have spoken with the police officers and sheriffs who traverse thousands of miles of bumpy rural roads in my district. Rio Arriba County, for example, is bigger than the State of Connecticut, yet it has fewer than two dozen police officers.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what helps a small, rural police department like Rio Arriba? Do you know what the sheriffs need? They need support from the FBI and Federal law enforcement. FBI comes in and helps them solve crimes.
Tribal law enforcement also relies on the FBI. Tribal leaders frequently describe the long wait times for police to arrive and the countless criminal investigations left unsolved because there aren't enough FBI agents.
Mr. Speaker, when you cut funding for the FBI, as Republican President Trump proposes in his budget, you are not cutting duplicative funding. You are cutting essential investigative services. It is a guarantee that crimes will go unsolved.
The partnership between law enforcement agencies at all levels is critical to keep our communities safe. From the sheriff in Rio Arriba to the Capitol Police officers right outside these doors, each plays an important role. Unfortunately, not everybody respects all of our law enforcement officers.
In this very building, January 6 insurrectionists brutally attacked the Capitol Police and law enforcement officers from multiple jurisdictions. More than 140 police suffered injuries and went to the hospital. Five officers died. Then, President Trump pardoned the violent thugs who battered those police officers. It is a shame.
Every day, we walk by our dedicated Capitol Police, yet very few Republicans have the courage to condemn the pardons of the violent thugs who beat the police. Last night during Rules, we couldn't even get a Republican who is a former prosecutor to condemn the pardons-- more shame. If Republicans truly backed the blue, they would all denounce those pardons.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Texas condemned those pardons. Is he willing to do so now?
Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to what Americans are focused on right now and what the thousands of callers to congressional offices, Republican and Democratic, are worried about. It is Republican cuts to Medicaid.
This is a big week for Republicans. As reported in Punchbowl, it is their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cut Medicaid.
This week in the dead of night while America was sleeping, Republican committees took a sledgehammer to lifesaving programs like Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what is happening. Democrats fought all night to save 8.6 million Americans from losing access to Medicaid. That doesn't include the 4.2 million Americans who will start paying a whole lot more for their healthcare premiums so big corporations can get their tax deductions.
Republicans voted down every single amendment that Democrats offered to protect Medicaid. Let me remind everybody that in more than 25 districts, more than a third of the constituents rely on Medicaid. That includes Republican Nick Begich's and Robert Bresnahan's districts. Not a single Republican had the courage to stand up for their constituents.
The people are showing up in our offices to demand that Republicans listen to them. Some are protesting in their wheelchairs.
Yesterday, I spoke to a disabled woman named Julie outside the committee markup. Thirty-five years ago, Julie crawled up the House steps to demand that Congress pass the Americans with Disabilities Act. She is now back to beg for the bare minimum. She told me that she doesn't trust Republicans to protect her healthcare. Based on their votes, she is right.
Congress listened to her plea 35 years ago. Now, the wealthy interests and Trump's pressure are just too much. Republicans won't listen to a word from Julie or the 80 disabled advocates who came with her. She and other advocates are asking them to protect Medicaid and to protect the services they need. Even though they are in wheelchairs, they are not voiceless and will show up with their power. If that doesn't break our hearts, I don't know what will.
We have a broken system that prioritizes the wealthy, corruption, and loyalty to President Trump over the health and well-being of people like Julie. There are 8.6 million people who will suffer because Republicans took their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cut Medicaid.
Republicans may be gleeful, but Americans will be tearful. Remember, congressional Republicans will lie over and over and say this is about rooting out fraud. No, it is not. It is about giving permanent tax cuts to the oligarchs. In fact, the top 20 percent of income earners will get 68 percent of the benefits in their bill.
Make no mistake that people will die as a result of these cuts. Families will suffer. Many will go broke thanks to medical bills, while millionaires get money for more yachts. Do they really need any more yachts?
Mr. Speaker, getting back to law enforcement, do you know the other things that sheriffs in my district need to respond to crime and to keep people alive? They need rural hospitals. When Republicans strip $715 billion from Medicaid, no matter how they try to paint that pig, they will be eliminating rural hospitals and emergency rooms.
When they do that, police officers in rural areas in places like Chama, New Mexico, in my district will have to drive 1\1/2\ to 2 hours to the nearest emergency room. Ask any first responder: The quicker somebody gets to an emergency room, the more likely they are to survive. When life or death is a matter of minutes, what Republicans are doing this week is deadly.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so concerned about crime in the country that the parting shot of Joe Biden on January 19 was to commute the sentences of 2,500 Federal defendants he claimed were ``convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.''
Let's look at that. We have a situation where he reduced the sentence of a Buffalo man, Lairon Graham, 67. In 2023, he was convicted of organizing and heading a drug conspiracy to sell fentanyl, crack cocaine, and heroin. When police raided his home, they found fentanyl, crack, and cash. He also possessed a firearm. In addition to heading up the drug gang, Graham was also convicted of sex trafficking by force or coercion from 2013 to 2021.
Of course, this is on top of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanting to defend a Maryland man for being sent overseas after the guy was clearly moving people illegally, beating his girlfriend and wife, violating our laws, and here illegally. That is who they want to defend.
There are numerous other examples. Jaron Ruth, another Buffalo native, pleaded guilty in 2019 to selling drugs over a period of 3 years and possessing firearms. He had been charged with shooting a man in the chest during a burglary of the victim's home.
These are the kind of folks that Joe Biden was commuting as he exited stage left. We had another situation where he commuted the sentence of a gentleman who left prison after Biden commuted his sentence in the killing of two FBI agents. Is that who my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think they ought to be defending?
Can they answer the question of commuting the sentences of these violent criminals and putting them out on the streets, just as they voted against every measure we put forward to defend our borders and to stop the death and destruction of American citizens like Laken Riley or like Jocelyn Nungaray or those who have died at the hands of dangerous criminal cartels and gangs in our country?
What President Trump is doing is restoring the rule of law. What Republicans are doing is standing up in defense of law enforcement because we stand up in defense of the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) for the opportunity to speak today, and I think 4 minutes will turn out to be an appropriate amount of time.
My colleague on the other side talked about the nature of things being deadly. I would like to talk about that.
On April 17, less than 1 month ago, at 11:56 in the morning, a shooter carrying a gun walked onto the campus of Florida State University and began to shoot students and adults. It was a gun crime that we would all agree was horrific.
Mr. Speaker, I am new in this place. I only got elected here a month ago. What I will tell you of my observation of my first 4 weeks of being here is I hear a lot of canned speeches that don't actually address the bills and issues that the American people have sent us here to work on. I think it is why we may be held, to some degree, in such low regard.
During this shooting at 11:56 on April 17, seven people were shot. Fortunately, five were not killed. We only know one of them. She was a graduate student. The other names have not been released. In that shooting, two were killed.
Robert Morales was 57 years old and a dining coordinator at Florida State. Tiru Chabba was a vice president at the food service company at Florida State.
Why do I tell this story? Law enforcement at Florida State did everything right. They rushed to the scene. They subdued the shooter. Mr. Speaker, do you know how long it took them to do that? It took them 4 minutes, the amount of time that I will speak here today. In those 4 minutes, with law enforcement doing everything, seven people were shot, and two were killed.
H.R. 2243 would say that if any one of them were a retired or an off- duty law enforcement officer, they could have protected themselves.
When these horrific things happen, the fact of the matter is that it will take law enforcement time to get there. Mr. Speaker, the only way for you to defend yourself is for you to do it.
I am not saying that, had that bill passed, these seven people wouldn't have been shot. I don't know if there was retired law enforcement there. I don't know that any of these people were that.
I know that when shooters consider the places that they are going to go, one of the things they think about is what might be the response. When we tell people who have spent their entire careers and who are trained--not just anyone but someone who for their entire career gave themselves selflessly to protect us all, when we tell that person because they are off-duty, because they are retired, all of that service is no longer useful, we needlessly put people at risk.
I don't want another shooting like we had at Florida State. God forbid, if there ever is another one, I want people there to respond. I am grateful to the law enforcement officers who took longer to get there than my speech will take, but I worry about what will happen next time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Bacon for bringing this bill forward. I thank Representative Roy for giving me the opportunity to speak. We were told we should stand up for our citizens in this process. When we stand up to keep them safe, that is exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am really wondering what kind of people they want to defend over there. Let's talk about those pardons. Let's talk about the fact that this isn't something that happened over there. This happened in this Capitol. Those violent offenders were violent before they got there.
Let me talk about a couple of them. Do my colleagues want to defend Steven Cappuccio? He was convicted of six felonies, including assaulting a police officer.
Mr. Speaker, he was together with David Dempsey. David Dempsey was sentenced to 20 years. He stomped on a police officer's head, and he struck an officer in the head with a metal crutch.
This is the kind of person the Republicans want to defend.
Enrique Tarrio, a former national leader of the Proud Boys and a domestic terrorist, was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Guy Reffitt, somebody who brought a gun, zip ties, and body armor, was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Not only that, they have gone after their pardons, and they haven't stopped the criminal spree.
A Houston man was pardoned by Trump and then arrested on sex charges.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled: ``Houston man pardoned by Trump arrested on child sex charge.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
Mr. Speaker, I think it is really interesting that one of my colleagues from Florida just brought up a
When he brought up the shooting, I thought it was interesting because he left out one of the most important parts. He brought up that he never wants to see one of these shootings happen again, but he left out how the shooter got his gun.
The shooter got his gun from his stepmother, and it was a retired service weapon that was not kept in a safe way. He stole the gun, the retired service weapon, from his stepmother, and then he went to Florida State University and murdered two people and wounded six others.
Mr. Speaker, I bet you that that same gentleman who talked about that shooting is going to vote ``yes'' later on H.R. 2255 which I deeply oppose.
Just 1 month later, after this former service weapon was used to carry out a mass shooting and kill people at Florida State University, Republicans here in Congress are pushing the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, which would flood the gun market with even more former service weapons without any additional precautions, zero safe storage and zero background checks. In every State, a police officer would be able to purchase an older gun from their department at a discounted price.
House Republicans would not even consider my amendment to encourage caution by letting people hold law enforcement agencies accountable with what is done with the weapon. The United States already has the highest number of mass shootings in the world, and gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in this country.
So I am glad that one of my Republican colleagues from Florida wants to make sure that the shootings don't happen again.
Let's start by ensuring that we block this bill, H.R. 2255, so that way police officers don't even have to respond to a mass shooting in the first place. I am done with talking about how we are going to handle these things after they happen. Let's talk about how we are going to prevent these shootings from happening in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What I would notice, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman complained about not having the amendment considered, but he offered the amendment about 1 hour before the Rules Committee met. So spare me the concern about whether or not we are considering amendments when we don't have the time to look at the amendment.
I would also note that when we are talking about these kinds of people, I went through a list of folks whom President Biden had commuted.
Here is another one. A Lubbock man, granted clemency by Biden, was arrested. The sheriff was absolutely angry about the former administration's decisions. The sheriff said that he felt angry after he found out a convicted criminal was being released back on the Lubbock streets early, that a convicted criminal is now back in law enforcement custody after violating his supervised release.
These are the kinds of folks whom we are putting back out on the streets, and we are having to arrest again the very people that President Biden put back out.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McGuire).
I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the three bills it provides consideration for.
Since 2020 respect for law enforcement around our country has been on the decline, and we have seen the effects this has had in our communities.
We all know the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. In Chicago, criminals do not care about gun laws. They have the strictest gun laws and the most gun violence by criminals who don't care about gun laws. We need more good guys with guns on the street, mostly because Biden's open-border policy brought more illegal criminals into our country who are robbing, raping, and killing the American people.
In November the American people responded to this lack of respect in the polls. They elected the Republican majority in the House, the Senate, and the President in the White House who truly believes in law and order.
The three bills that the rule provides consideration for are commonsense bills. If we entrust law enforcement officers to uphold the laws of our Nation and risk their lives daily, then we should be able to entrust them to carry their weapons unrestricted off duty and to purchase their former service weapons.
Like many of my colleagues, I agree that we would not have a nation without those we entrust in uniform, whether they serve in the military, as first responders, or as law enforcement officers.
Mr. Speaker, these men and women aren't honorable because of the badge they wear. They make the badge honorable because of the lives they live.
Every time I return to my district, I meet with the sheriffs of the 24 counties, cities, and towns I represent and hear directly from them about the troubles they face in the line of duty.
If we want to see safer streets and communities in our country, then we must ensure that we give law enforcement every tool possible so that they can make it through the day and return home safely.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I express my strong support for the rule and the underlying bills that it allows consideration for.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H. Con. Res. 33.
This measure will ensure that the plaque honoring the brave police officers who defended us on January 6 is hung in the Capitol as required by law.
Mr. Speaker, you know it is Police Week, but Republicans for some reason refuse to put up the plaque honoring the heroic efforts by U.S. Capitol Police and other local and Federal law officers who defended us and our democracy on January 6.
It is not a scary thing. The plaque looks like this.
Don't you agree, Mr. Speaker?
It is lovely. It recognizes their heroic efforts, and it is the law. It was signed into law by the President that this plaque goes up.
What are they afraid of?
Why don't they want to honor the Capitol Police and other law enforcement officers who were beaten and battered?
Why is their support for police conditional?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), to speak more to this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate Police Week, I join my colleagues in honoring law enforcement around the country and back home in Colorado.
On Capitol Hill, the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police protect us and the seat of our democracy. I personally owe a great debt of gratitude to these officers who responded to the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Many of my colleagues and I were trapped right up there in the House gallery that day as an insurrectionist mob converged on the Capitol. Officers from the Capitol Police, Metropolitan Police Department, and numerous other departments risked their lives to protect us and our democracy.
As seen here, these officers were brutally assaulted with flag poles, bear spray, stun guns, knives, and bats. Over 140 officers were wounded and sustained injuries from the attack. Many still deal with the mental and physical trauma from that day.
There were numerous officers who died from their injuries after the attack: Officer Brian Sicknick, Officer Howard Liebengood, Officer Jeffrey Smith, Officer Gunther Hashida, and Officer Kyle DeFreytag.
Congress, on a bipartisan basis, took a step to honor their extraordinary bravery when we passed a law in 2022 directing the placement of a plaque at the Capitol.
The plaque is complete. It is done. It has been sitting somewhere in storage in the Capitol, and it is way past time that we display this for America to see.
This Police Week let's honor the men and women who bravely risked everything to do their duty to protect this House and to protect this Capitol and our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in doing the right thing. It is time to display this plaque so Americans around the country who visit the seat of this democracy will see and be able to join us in honoring the bravery of those men and women from January 6, 2021.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would note that as we are considering this Police Week and we are talking about the safety and security of our streets, I would just note that two of our most dangerous States as measured by violent crime and property crime rates are the States of New Mexico and Colorado, which also happen to have Democrats controlling all levels of power.
I would note that last summer, the good people of Aurora, Colorado, were dealing with Tren de Aragua, who were engaging in violent activities in apartment complexes and demonstrating the violence that has led to the death of Americans, and the trafficking of dangerous narcotics and fentanyl. They literally took over their homes. I met with and talked to Cindy Romero from Aurora about what happened to her in her home and that my Democratic colleagues weren't even acknowledging that it was happening. They were just ignoring it.
Then Tren de Aragua moved to San Antonio and other places across the country. I want to give a shout-out to the Texas Department of Public Safety and all the great local law enforcement in Hays County, Texas. That is because just literally last week they converged together with the FBI to go identify and stop 47 individuals. Probably 14 of whom were a part of Tren de Aragua from all over the country. They had come into Austin to coordinate. They had drugs, narcotics, and children in a home near where I live in Dripping Springs, Texas.
Thanks to law enforcement we now have removed at least four of those individuals and are prosecuting others because we now have a law enforcement community who knows that the President of the United States is backing them, and a Republican House and a Republican Senate are backing them.
Local law enforcement are being backed instead of having leftist judges who are dismissing the crimes and putting dangerous criminals on the streets. When Joe Biden commutes sentences and puts dangerous criminals on the streets, the American people know who is actually standing up for law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I find it incredibly ironic when my colleague talks about President Trump backing law enforcement.
Last night in the Rules Committee, their Republican colleague, Mr. Knott, noted that Republicans have not increased or passed legislation for law enforcement in the 119th Congress.
When Republicans back law enforcement, they should actually be passing the funding to support State law enforcement, to support that collaboration and coordination. At the same time we are seeing that Republicans are not saying a peep about the fact that President Trump is cutting existing resources.
Not only does he plan to cut the budget for law enforcement, he is cutting resources today. He has terminated $820 million worth of grants for public safety. He has cut $169 million in funding for community safety and violence reduction programs. He has cut $71.7 million in grants to policing and prosecution programs, including longstanding efforts to address violent crimes and acts of targeted violence.
It doesn't terminate there. The Trump administration terminated grants for policing and prosecution, for victim services, for juvenile justice and child protection, for substance abuse and mental health treatment, for correction, and for protecting and serving the women who have been raped and the children who have been abused. He has cut that funding.
I have spoken to the women who are administering those programs and who have called me in tears because the children they serve will not be receiving those Federal grants.
Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to this issue of the pardons that my colleague has referred to.
Once again, let's go back and think about how they have not objected to the pardons of the January 6, nor have they called for putting up the plaque to honor the law enforcement who served us that day.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, which I will propose if the previous question is denied, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, to discuss our proposal.
Mr. Speaker, both Democrats and Republicans should be forever grateful to the police officers who protected this Capitol as an angry, racist, violent mob came in. We will forever remember the 140 officers who were injured and the five officers who lost their lives as a result, including Brian Sicknick, a Capitol Police Officer; Howard Liebengood, a Capitol Police Officer; and Metropolitan Police Department Officers Jeffrey Smith, Gunther Hashida, and Kyle DeFreytag.
I am also grateful to those officers that testified in front of the January 6th Committee, including Michael Fanone, Officer Harry Dunn, Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell, and Officer Daniel Hodges.
It has been more than 2 years, Mr. Speaker--take a look at this plaque--that the other side has failed to properly honor police officers. Yet, they stand here and want to dictate to us how supportive they are of the men and women in police departments across this country. They have failed to put this plaque up to properly honor those men and women that protected our lives as an angry, racist mob came into this building and chanted: ``hang Mike Pence.'' Let's kill Nancy Pelosi. That is what they intended to do, and you failed to recognize the police officers that protected all of us, Democrat and Republican.
As the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, I am more than willing to work with the Architect of the Capitol and Republican leadership to make sure that we honor our police officers, and this Police Week it is important that we do that.
What do we get from the White House? We get a pardon of very violent people that wanted to hurt all of us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to say to the Republican leadership that they must honor police officers in the proper way, particularly those of them that gave their lives for us and the American public. Let's do this. It has been years now since they refused to do this, and yet they call themselves the party of law and order.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If we talk about standing up in defense of police, how can my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say with a straight face that that is what they want to do when we had one Democrat from New York who said: I am not in favor of more police; I am actually in favor of defunding the police. We had another Congresswoman from New York who said: Defunding police means defunding police. I can go back, and the Record is replete with examples of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle calling for defunding the police. In fact, one of my colleagues from Texas was literally serving on the Austin City Council when they cut $150 million out of the Austin Police Department's budget, leaving their academy decimated, leaving them unable to field 911 calls, leaving violent crimes skyrocketing in the city of Austin, because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were patently clear about their desire to defund the police and
Yes, we are standing up for the men and women in blue. Yes, we will defend them, but, no, we are not going to blindly support grants that are being used by NGOs to undermine the very police they are saying they are trying to support. For example, one grant to an NGO that was promoting prostitution and open borders, this is the kind of stuff that the American people sent us here to stop. This is the kind of stuff that they are proud of the President for using DOGE to identify and stop.
Yes, we are trying to defund those particularly bad grant programs, while we try to make sure that our local jurisdictions can fund police properly and have judges that will actually put bad guys in jail instead of letting them on the streets and a President that won't commute the sentences of 2,500 people, dozens or hundreds of whom were violent criminals and are now back out on the streets.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague has mentioned all kinds of words and ideas, and he is putting all kinds of stuff out there, but he has not once mentioned the plaque.
The previous question is: Will you honor the police who defended us in this Chamber by doing a simple thing? That is putting up this plaque.
Mr. Speaker, what counts on the floor of this House is your vote. Let's look at what those votes have resulted in. Those votes say we should honor the police who suffered when the insurrectionists beat them, that we should honor the police who protected our democracy and indeed protected every single one of us. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, a House Member or a Senator, you were protected by the police.
Are you willing to vote for this? If you vote against the previous question, you are saying we will not do this simple act of respect.
Now, let's get to the idea of what did you actually vote on.
Democrats have the receipts. For fiscal year 2023, the last year that Democrats wrote the appropriations bill, we increased funding for grants to State and local law enforcement by $506 billion. All but nine House Republicans voted against that bill.
Remember, it is not what you say. It is what you do. What did you vote for? Democrats put forward bills to increase funding, and Republicans voted against it.
We also increased funding for the FBI by half a billion dollars. I already went through how important the FBI is for Tribal law enforcement; how much our rural and local officers rely on them to do the investigation. They have access to technology that our sheriffs do not. The FBI supports law enforcement in Indian country.
We need these resources, and I am incredibly insulted when the gentleman, my good friend from Texas, my neighbor, actually says of local law enforcement that these programs are a waste. Go and talk to the people who rely on them. They are not duplicative. They are not a waste. They are essential.
Let me do just one last little fact check on that. When you look at who has the most homicides and some of the highest crime rates, it is indeed Republican States. Yes, it is unfortunate, and it is something we need to work on. Democrats raise this issue all the time, but the highest levels of crime and homicides are--let me go through those States--Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, sadly, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, South Carolina. See a little trend there? It is actually Republicans. Don't come and talk to us about that. It is dangerous to live and work in many Republican-led States.
Let's get back to what we do to honor and respect law enforcement on this Police Week.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We have heard a lot of claims today, but here is what remains true. Democrats support law enforcement, not just with words, but with action, with our votes. We back them with funding, with resources, and, importantly, with respect.
That is why, under Democratic leadership, we increased funding for local and Federal law enforcement, including the very FBI that solves crimes in our rural and Tribal communities.
We don't just say these things. We show up for law enforcement. We stand with the Capitol Police who defended our democracy and our lives on January 6. We honor their courage. We mourn those who died, and we refuse to excuse the violent criminals who attacked them.
Unfortunately, too many of our Republican colleagues have chosen loyalty to Donald Trump over loyalty to the truth and over loyalty to the officers who keep us safe. You cannot say you support and respect law enforcement and stay silent as Trump pardons the violent criminals who battered the police on January 6. You can't say you support law enforcement when you refuse to do something as simple as hanging a plaque to honor their sacrifices.
While Republicans hold up empty slogans, Democrats fight for the health and dignity of the American people. We fought all night long to protect 8.6 million Americans from losing Medicaid, for the mother caring for a child with disabilities. We fought to protect the senior in rural New Mexico who has to drive hours just to see a doctor and will have to drive hours more when their Medicaid cuts destroy our world healthcare system. Why? So Republicans can hand out tax cuts to billionaires.
Do the millionaires and billionaires you are protecting really need more? They already have so much. They will drown and bury the veteran, the pregnant mother, the disabled worker with paperwork while they will just give away a bigger tax cut to the wealthiest among us. That just doesn't seem fair.
Mr. Speaker, I say that this is about values. This is about who do you value and what will you do when it actually comes down to vote?
Democrats value and choose to protect people like Julie, who crawled up these Capitol steps 35 years ago to demand dignity and now returns to beg us not to be forgotten. We are not forgetting her, and Democrats will not stop fighting for her and for millions more.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of my Republican colleagues for bringing forward legislation in support of our law enforcement community.
I am proud of the fact that, in fact, this President is trying to focus resources where it will best provide security and safety on our streets and back our law enforcement community to actually target criminals, not fund ridiculous grants, not fund NGOs that are undermining our security, the very NGOs that are perpetuating the open borders; that are putting gangs in our communities, like TDA and MS-13, that lead directly to the death of Americans, death of Americans like Jocelyn Nungaray, like Laken Riley, like Rachel Morin, like Kayla Hamilton; Americans that are no longer with us because of the policies of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because of wide-open borders, and because of tolerance of violent criminals, because of a Democrat President who has let violent criminals out on the street and commuted their sentences; because of radical leftist judges promoted by those that fund my colleagues on the other side of the aisle; like George Soros who have funded DAs that are letting criminals out on the streets in cities like San Antonio and Austin that I represent; like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that have defunded the police time and time again and have defended that position.
For example, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that the defund the police movement is one of reimagining the current police system to build an entity that does not violate us, while relocating funds to invest in community services.
Another colleague said that the defund movement isn't new. Folks are just finally listening.
Defund the police, said a Democrat colleague.
Defunding the police isn't radical. It is real, said a former Democrat colleague and, as I said before, a colleague that literally voted on the Austin City Council to strip $150 million out of the police budget, leaving the Austin Police stranded, unable to do their job and the people of Austin unable to get the services that they deserve and pay taxes for, while their streets are made more violent and while criminals are allowed to roam free under the very aforementioned Soros DAs that refused to prosecute the criminals.
Everybody in America knows what is going on. Everybody in America gets the joke. They saw their cities burning in the summer of 2020. They saw the reality of what happens when you allow these radical Democratic policies to take root, and they want it to end.
They want common sense back. They want a President who will enforce the law and an FBI that will target criminals instead of the American people. They don't want to have a Federal Government that is weaponized against them. They don't want them to be targeted.
They want violent criminals off the streets. They want violent gangs off the streets. They want our borders to be secure. They want TDA out. They want MS-13 out. They want fentanyl off their streets.
The only way you can do that is to actually back up the people trying to enforce the law and actually stand with them in the enforcement of the law, not turn around and let all the criminals back out on the streets. Yet, that is what my colleagues perpetually want to do.
The fact of the matter is, the American people understand that this President, this Republican House, this Republican Senate, and Republican jurisdictions across the country stand for law enforcement. They stand for order. That is what they want. That is what they sent us here for.
We put together some bills this week that are focused on wishes of the people, the men and women in blue, like my grandfather, who served as chief of police in Sweetwater, Texas, and the many law enforcement I was proud to serve with and alongside in the Office of the Attorney General of Texas and in the United States Attorney's Office. We work with them on a regular basis.
When you talk to them, they cannot do their jobs if the radical leftist policies of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are allowed to continue to be perpetuated. You can't combat crime if you put the criminals back on the streets. You can't combat crime if you import criminals from dangerous prisons. You can't combat crime if your law enforcement agencies are targeting American citizens for political retribution rather than taking dangerous, violent criminals off the streets.
I rise in support of these bills. I rise in support of the rule. The legislation that we put forward will provide the value for our men and women in uniform that they have asked for. They have asked for the ability to keep the weapons that they had in service.
Why does that matter? I will tell you why it matters. My grandfather that I mentioned before died in 1949 of cancer. When my dad, a 7-year- old, had polio and my grandmother was a single mom in west Texas raising him and did all the tough things, didn't ask for any handouts, took two jobs, helped my dad go on to be the first to go to college--my dad is 82 years old. He is still alive. He is 82 and still manages to walk, barely.
My dad talks about his dad as a cop, and he pulls out his old .38, the .38 revolver that my grandfather had in service. That means something to the people who serve. It means something for them to be able to carry that with them and take it with them. It is no small thing.
Some of my colleagues dismiss it as not being important. I can tell you it is important to the people who are out there serving because they devote their lives to this cause.
When I take that .38 out of the safe and show it to my son, he is holding the .38 that his great-grandfather held and carried with him when he was policing the streets. I think that is a good thing.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 405 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New
Salem Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2215) to redesignate the Salem Maritime National Historic Site as the ``Salem Maritime National Historical Park'', and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 382, nays 31, not voting 19, as follows:
Messrs. KENNEDY of Utah, HIGGINS of Louisiana, OGLES, MASSIE, HARRIS of North Carolina, and Mrs. BIGGS of South Carolina changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. McCOLLUM, Messrs. GOLDMAN of New York, HIMES, GARCIA of Illinois, and KEATING changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2240, Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2243, Leosa Reform Act; and Providing For...
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 405) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2240) to require the Attorney General to develop reports relating to violent attacks against law enforcement officers, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2243) to amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act and provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2255) to allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service weapons, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, nays 204, not voting 13, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I regrettably missed votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 125, NAY on Roll Call No. 126, and NO on Roll Call No. 127.
Request to Consider H. CON. RES. 33, Installation of Plaque Honoring Law Enforcement Officers Who Responded to Violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 33, a bill directing the Architect of the Capitol to install at a permanent location on the western front of the United States Capitol an honorific plaque listing the names of all of the officers of the United States Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and protective entities who responded to the violence that occurred at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under guidelines consistently issued by the successive Speakers, as recorded in section 956 of the House Rules and Manual, the Chair is constrained not to entertain the request unless it has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leaderships.
Mr. Speaker, this is National Police Week pursuant to Public Law 87-726, enacted on October 1, 1962, National Police Week here in the United States Congress, where Congress honors the courage, the bravery, the service, the sacrifice, and the heroism of members of law enforcement. Is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a proper parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, do the House rules require compliance with the 2022 Public Law 117-103, signed by the President at the time, that requires a plaque listing the names of all police officers who defended the Capitol on January 6 to be placed on the western front of the Capitol Building?
Do the House rules require compliance with that public law?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not respond to an inquiry regarding the general application of the rules of the House to a matter not currently pending before the House.
Mr. Speaker, we appear to be in violation of the House rules, given that the law that was passed in 2022 required that a plaque honoring those heroic police officers be placed on the western front of the Capitol Building no later than March 15, 2023, but 791 days have passed, and this Republican Congress has refused to comply with the law.
It is time to honor those heroic officers. It is unconscionable. It is unpatriotic. It is unfathomable. It is unacceptable. It is un- American. You need to honor those officers and treat them with the dignity and respect that they deserve.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 405, I call up the bill (H.R. 2243) to amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act and provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee of the Judiciary, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt) and the gentleman from
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2243.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2243, the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Reform Act, which reforms the LEOSA, makes important updates to the existing LEOSA program.
In 2004, President George W. Bush signed LEOSA into law. The law exempts certain active and retired law enforcement officers from local and State prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms.
In order to qualify under LEOSA, active law enforcement officers must meet several important requirements. For example, they must be authorized to carry a firearm by their agency. They cannot be subject to disciplinary actions by the agency that could result in the loss of their police power. They must meet certain firearms qualification standards. They cannot be under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating substances, and they must not be prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm.
Retired law enforcement officers must also meet several requirements in order to qualify under LEOSA. For example, they must have separated from service in good standing and served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more. They also are required to meet certain firearms training standards and must not be prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm.
The LEOSA Reform Act will allow these officers to carry a concealed firearm in the same manner many licensed citizens carry a firearm in their State.
For example, the LEOSA Reform Act will allow law enforcement officers qualified under LEOSA to carry concealed firearms in national parks, certain Federal facilities that are open to the public, on public transportation, in school zones, and in other areas.
The bill also reduces the frequency that qualified retired law enforcement officers are required to meet certain qualification standards.
Many States allow State licensed concealed carry permit holders to carry a concealed firearm in gun-free school zones and on public transportation in the State in which they are licensed. This bill affords qualified law enforcement officers the same privilege.
This legislation improves public safety as our officers face increasingly greater dangers, and current restrictions hinder their ability to carry firearms and protect themselves and others.
At a time when violent crime continues to plague our Nation, we must support our active and retired law enforcement officers and ensure they are able to protect themselves and to protect others no matter where they are in the United States.
This legislation is supported by the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association NYPD.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is Police Week. In colloquial terms, it is Law Enforcement Week. Traditionally, we do two things in Law Enforcement Week. One, we recognize the valor, the sacrifices, and the commitment of the police officers who serve our communities, who serve us in Congress, and who serve across the country.
Two, we try to think of ways we actually can assist them in doing their jobs better so we can make their work more effective and safer, and we can make the police function generally more efficacious for the American people.
Unfortunately, with this bill, we are not doing either. In fact, the majority is really falling down on the job in terms of both of those major objectives.
In 2022, on March 15, we passed H.R. 2471, to post in the Capitol on the west side of the Capitol a plaque in honor of the hundreds of police officers who nobly served us on January 6, 2021 when our institution, when our democracy, came under attack by Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and other violent extremists who stormed the Capitol, drove Members of the House of Representatives out of our Chamber, drove Members of the Senate out of their Chamber, and attempted to overthrow a Presidential election.
Now, the new administration has seen fit to pardon more than 1,500 rioters and violent insurrectionists who attempted to overthrow our constitutional form of government on that day, and they succeeded in bloodying, wounding, injuring, and hospitalizing more than 140 police officers on January 6. Several officers died in the subsequent weeks, and several people died on that day.
Now, we have passed a law, not a recommendation, not an idle promise, and not a suggestion in a suggestion box, we passed a law to post this plaque in the U.S. Capitol. Yet Speaker Johnson has done absolutely nothing to post this plaque.
I know that some of my colleagues think that they are being most effective when they are doing nothing. This is a Congress that is getting a reputation for being perhaps the greatest do-nothing Congress in the history of the United States. Here is one thing that this Congress can do, which is to post this plaque which reads: ``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.''
What extraordinary irony that is. Their heroism is already being forgotten, or at least there are some people who would like us to forget their heroism. That is on the symbolic front, because everybody wants to pay lip service to the police, and everybody wants to say that we honor them. Let's really honor them.
Let's put up a permanent plaque for future generations of Americans to see that these officers risked their lives for the people in this Chamber, for the Members of the House and the Senate, for the leadership of the House and the Senate, for the staff who work here, and for the reporters who work here.
We have many officers who have had to leave the police service because they have been wounded and disfigured permanently by the injuries they suffered at the hands of these people. This is the very least we can do at a time when the President of the United States says that he wants to create a fund for January 6, not a fund for Michael Fanone who had a heart attack and had to beg for his life; not a fund for Sergeant Gonell who was forced out of the force because of permanent injuries and now is living on a fraction of the salary he had before trying to support his family; not a fund for Officer Hodges who was tortured in the eyes of the world, who got caught in the doorway while the insurrectionists beat him with all of their weapons that they brought back that day.
No, it is not a fund for them that President Trump is suggesting. He wants a fund for the rioters. He wants a fund for the families of the insurrectionists.
As Sergeant Gonell said recently, it seems like he believes that the rioters and the insurrectionists were the ones defending the Capitol on that day.
Let's get this plaque up. We voted for it on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis.
I appeal to Speaker Johnson to enforce the law even if he doesn't like it anymore and even if he changed his mind about the plaque. This is the law. Let's get it up there.
Now, secondly, we should be talking about how we could actually aid, abet, and assist law enforcement officers in their work. Unfortunately, we have not had from the majority a single bill that
As far as we can tell, one person in DOGE, one unelected, midnight bureaucrat whose career was made with Elon Musk, who seems to have skipped town now, that guy cut out hundreds of millions of dollars of aid to local law enforcement and community safety groups across America.
I introduced an amendment in the budget reconciliation process in the Judiciary Committee to restore all of that money. Not a single Member, neither a Democrat nor a Republican, spoke against it, and my Republican colleagues did not say a word, but they all voted against it. They voted to uphold that nasty handiwork of DOGE slashing hundreds of millions of dollars, which we appropriated on a bipartisan basis in the House, in the Senate, and it was signed by the President, programmed by the Department of Justice and awarded to their communities, my community, your communities, communities across the country, and one young person, a midnight computer hacker from DOGE, Elon Musk's emissary, destroyed all of it, more than 300 grants.
Now they come forward with a budget for next year that would cut more than $1 billion out of law enforcement: FBI, Department of Justice, and ATF, you name it, Mr. Speaker, right down the line. I will have some more to say about that after.
So what do we have?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. In 2004, Congress passed LEOSA, a law that allows both off-duty and retired officers to carry concealed firearms irrespective of State law. It compelled all States to allow off-duty and retired officers to carry concealed firearms under the terms set by Congress overriding the rules of the State.
Now, when Congress debated it 20 years ago, members of the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle expressed anxiety about the bill trespassing on the rights of the States to decide on gun laws for themselves. The Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, Congressman Sensenbrenner, opposed LEOSA for the reason of federalism and State rights. He voted against it. Several police groups opposed the legislation expressing concerns about how it would affect officer safety, how it would create confusion in the event of an active shooter, how it might expose their agencies to more liability, and the insufficiency of training requirements for retired officers.
Despite all of that, LEOSA became the law after Congress legislated some important limits on it and imposed commonsense training requirements on the former officers. Those have been in place for more than 20 years.
Now, H.R. 2243 would terminate the realm of discretion that States have to limit when and where individuals may carry their concealed firearms under LEOSA. It would force States to allow off-duty and retired officers to carry concealed firearms onto all private property open to the public, including restaurants, bars, parks, national parks, and playgrounds. It would also force States to allow off-duty and retired officers to carry concealed firearms on buses, trains, and subways. It would even force States to allow for the concealed carry of firearms in gun-free school zones. It also allows the off-duty and retired officers to completely disregard State laws prohibiting high- capacity magazines.
This legislation not only supersedes the considered policy judgments of the States, but it threatens the safety and security of Federal agencies by forcing them to allow concealed carry in many Federal buildings. Forcing Federal offices and buildings to allow concealed carry is a completely unnecessary and dangerous risk.
The legislation also weakens training standards. Under current law, a person carrying a firearm must meet State training requirements every year, but this bill would allow individuals to do concealed carry with training certifications obtained every 3 years. This is troubling given that the bill extends nationwide concealed carry to retired officers who are no longer receiving the training that accompanies their old employment.
Our colleagues have different reasons that they advance for this, which I think are pretty refutable. In the big picture, this bill does nothing for existing police officers right now. It does nothing to enhance public safety, and our friends have completely missed the mark I think in terms of what law enforcement week should be all about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a law enforcement officer does not cease being a law enforcement officer merely because he is off duty or because of where he goes, or she goes. Upon retirement, the scars of service, including the animosities built up with many people who do not care for law enforcement officers because they have been subject to the enforcement of the law over the course of a career, upon retirement those old animosities often linger.
Those of us who support this measure and support it strongly understand and argue that it is essential to the safety of our existing officers and to the safety of our retired officers that we recognize that ongoing risk and burden that they have taken on and that they continue to carry and allow them to continue to carry the means to defend themselves and others in reasonable locations, as in many States ordinary civilian concealed carry permit holders may do.
We think it is commonsense legislation, and I would just point out in response to some of the comments of my colleague from Maryland, I wasn't here in 2004 during the debates that he cited over the original LEOSA. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of what he said, but I would say this: It is now 20 years later, and I think that history has shown us that many of the concerns presented in 2004 were not, in fact, realized by LEOSA's enactment, nor will they be realized as a result of enactment of this strengthening of that underlying statute for our officers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my distinguished colleague's suggestion that I may have the wisdom of somebody who has been here for 21 years, but actually I wasn't here either. I got it just from the books myself.
I was here, I should say, in 2021, when the Chamber was stormed, and that is a day I will never forget. Forgive my passion on the point of getting that plaque up. I wish our colleagues would just help us convince the Speaker of the House that this is something that is simple, and it should be done. It is not a partisan issue.
On that day, we were not Democrats or Republicans. We were Americans, and we were legislators together being hounded and chased out of this Chamber by people who did not accept the constitutional rules of the game.
To me, it is a matter of great regret and melancholy that somehow it has become politicized to the point where people can't even acknowledge what they were saying at the time. We had Republican leaders who were describing it as terrorism and saying it was absolutely inexcusable and indefensible. Now, all of a sudden, we have the majority which will not even follow the law by posting a plaque in honor of the officers who gave blood and sweat and tears on that day.
One of them, Officer Hodges got caught in the doorway. The whole world saw him screaming to high heaven for probably--I don't know if it was 45 seconds or maybe it was up to 90 seconds, as he was being beaten and pummeled, and he was being crushed in the doorway. When they finally dislodged him, they took him back where they were taking the officers. We were very short-handed. They wanted to tell him to just stay there and wash his eyes out. He took about 5 to 10 minutes while they were pouring water in his eyes, and he got up. Do you know what he did? He went back outside, and he rejoined the battle because he said he
That is the kind of bravery that we should be at least acknowledging, if not praising. I know at the time we thanked them for saving our lives, and people did die that day. Again, there were more than 140 officers who were wounded and brutalized and injured, and many still have the physical injuries and scars that they are dealing with, as well as the mental scars, because there is a lot of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Several of the officers who were there had been in the Iraq war, and they had been in the Afghan war. They testified before the January 6th Select Committee, and several of them testified they had never seen violence as brutal and as bloody as what took place on January 6, 2021, with the various extremist groups that came and led the attack on the Chamber and then gave bloody instructions to the rest of the mob about how to treat police officers in their effort to go and ``hang Mike Pence.'' That was the chant. I can still hear in my mind, ringing off the walls of the Capitol: ``Hang Mike Pence.'' ``Hang Mike Pence.'' ``Where's Nancy?'' ``Where's Nancy?''
We are not going to allow this to be buried into some kind of Orwellian memory hall. We have got a law requiring that that plaque go up, and we are going to see that that plaque goes up and that the law is enforced.
As for the LEOSA reform, again, it doesn't even purport to do anything for police and law enforcement. Today, it would, I suppose, increase some of the mobility of retired officers, off-duty officers to go to places like restaurants, bars, public parks, national parks, metros and buses, and so on, if they are police. I think that that should be decided by our communities, whether people are doing concealed carry there.
I thought that a belief in federalism was something that unifies us. That is something that the State governments can decide in cooperation with the local governments. The Congress of the United States does not need to be making decisions about restaurants in Charleston, South Carolina, or bars in El Paso, Texas, or what have you. Why don't we let the people of the States and the localities make those decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent presentation of the bill. I wish it were one that we could be together on, but I think it just goes way too far in terms of trespassing on States' rights and States' powers. We have a nice equilibrium and stasis in terms of where the law has been for the last two decades, and this seems unnecessary. It does seem to me like a diversion from the things we actually could be doing to be making the lives of police officers safer.
The reason why so many police organizations are with 90 percent of the American people in supporting a universal violent criminal background check is because nobody should be accessing guns, any kind of gun, if they are not able to pass the Brady background check. That background check has saved countless lives since it was instituted. The reason the vast majority of the people support it is because we need to close those loopholes. You should not be able to skip a background check by finding a gun online. You should not be able to skip a background check by going to a private gun show or engaging in a so- called private sale or transfer.
We need a universal violent criminal background check. That will do far more than anything we are looking at today to make the lives of police officers better, to make their jobs easier, because they are on the frontlines of these killing fields across the country.
America's rates of gun violence are completely out of control when compared to the nations in the European Union or Canada, our next-door neighbor. We are losing 5, 10, or 20 times the number of people that the residents of those countries are losing because our gun laws are like Swiss cheese. They are filled with holes. Let's close those loopholes. It doesn't diminish anybody's Second Amendment rights.
Justice Scalise said it himself in District of Columbia v. Heller. You can have criminal background checks to make sure that only the right people are getting guns and not the wrong people are getting guns. There are things we can do to improve public safety and to assist police officers, and we should be working on those.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for his argument and advocacy today.
I would just point out to the body that while my distinguished colleague speaks with his usual passion on many subjects, the only subject before us today is whether or not this body is going to pass, to enact, to approve H.R. 2243, the LEOSA Reform Act. That is the sole question in front of us.
That measure is critically important to the safety of many law enforcement officers retired to many law enforcement officers off duty. The bad guys don't stop looking for them just because the cop is out of uniform and at a restaurant or taking his family to a national park or otherwise visiting a location where today the law may preclude him or her from carrying the means of defending himself, his family, his colleagues, or the stranger standing next to him.
We trust those officers to do exactly that while they are on duty and in service, and we should trust them to do exactly that under the reasonably expanded scope contemplated by this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this bill and to send it to the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Calling on Elected Officials and Civil Society Leaders to Counter Antisemitism and Educate the Public on the Contributions of the Jewish American Community
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 352) calling on elected officials and civil society leaders to counter antisemitism and educate the public on the contributions of the Jewish American community.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 352.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this month, we celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month. First proclaimed by President George W. Bush and by each President since, this month recognizes the contributions of the Jewish community to our country. We celebrate this month amidst a persistent increase in anti-Semitism in our country.
Since the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas on Israel, incidents of anti-Semitic attacks and harassment have skyrocketed. The American Jewish Committee found that 77 percent of American Jews say they feel less safe in the United States since the October 7 attacks. Hillel International found that 83 percent of Jewish college students have experienced or witnessed some form of anti-Semitism since the October 7 attacks.
In April, Harvard released a report examining anti-Semitism on its campus with stark findings. One Israeli student said: ``My friend has been told that others would not attend social gatherings if I was present, as they couldn't risk the social consequences of being seen with an Israeli.''
Another student said: ``I am tired of fighting. It is the same group of students whose sole objective seems to be to harass and intimidate Jewish students. Despite reaching out to every office, everyone says it is not their problem.''
Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. It is all of our problem, and it cannot continue. This House, elected officials at the State and local levels, faith leaders, community leaders, and university administrators all have an obligation to confront anti-Semitism.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding and for his stalwart and unyielding support for the Jewish community, for his leadership as a member of the Jewish community, and for his decades of work to support Jewish community values.
I rise in strong support of my resolution, H. Res. 352, to recognize Jewish American Heritage Month and highlight the enduring contributions of Jewish Americans to our country.
I proudly sponsored this bill when I was a freshman Member of Congress, and it was the first piece of legislation that I passed as a freshman 20 years ago. I thank my co-leads, Representative Troy Carter, Congresswoman Miller-Meeks, and Congressman Fitzpatrick, for joining me in co-leading this resolution. It is a resolution that highlights the enduring contributions of Jewish Americans to our country.
Every May, we come together to celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month, also known as JAHM, and the generations of Jewish Americans who are integral parts of the rich mosaic of people and the heritages that make up these great United States.
While we joyfully celebrate this month, it is the second JAHM that we commemorate under the shadow of Hamas' October 7 attack on Israel. This was the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.
Since that fateful day, the United States has witnessed a historic rise in anti-Semitism, which was already explosive prior to October 7, with an absolute explosion of online hate.
In 2024, the ADL tracked 9,354 anti-Semitic incidents across America. That marked a 344 percent increase over the past 5 years, and it was the highest number on record since these instances of hate were first tracked in 1979.
It is so disheartening that every year a new record is set of anti- Jewish incidents, but it also demonstrates that we have a lot of work to do together.
According to the American Jewish Committee, in 2024, one-third of American Jews had been the personal target of anti-Semitism over the past year, and sadly, one-third of Jewish college students felt uncomfortable or unsafe on campus due to their Jewish identity.
While we must take steps to protect Jewish students on college campuses, we cannot allow anti-Semitism to be used as a vehicle to take away the rights of others. Make no mistake, anti-Semitism is a canary in the coal mine. Attacks on Jewish students in any school setting are unacceptable, and there should be serious consequences.
By investing in policies that protect Jewish students, like fully funding the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights to fund investigations and hold colleges and universities--and, quite frankly, schools across the country and secondary schools--tolerating anti- Semitism accountable, we can support all students' ability to live and study in places that value and respect their heritage.
While there is no simple solution to end this extremist hate, we all can take steps to end this violence.
In the Biden administration's national strategy to counter anti- Semitism, the U.S.' first-ever blueprint, it called on all aspects of society to commemorate JAHM and use it as a tool to fight hate. That is because we need Jews and non-Jews alike to learn about all the remarkable Jewish Americans who served in government or the military, or who won Nobel prizes, for example, and how Jewish Americans lead universities and make lifesaving medical discoveries that we all count on today.
However, the significant contributions Jewish Americans have made and continue to make toward America's success are not widely known, so today's resolution highlights Jewish American inventors who created services and products that all Americans rely on each and every day.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, Irving Naxon invented the slow cooker. He took inspiration from Jewish cooking traditions in Europe to allow Jewish communities to have fresh and hot meals on Shabbat.
Sylvan Goldman invented the shopping cart, transforming the ease with which people are able to shop for their families.
When Hedy Lamarr, the famous and accomplished actress, was not acting in films, she invented the concept of frequency hopping, which opened the door to a wide range of wireless communications technologies, including WiFi, GPS, and Bluetooth.
There are a whole lot of gamers who would love that Ralph Baer invented the Brown Box, a prototype for the first multiplayer, multiprogram video game system.
These are just a few of the innovative contributions that American Jews brought to all of our lives. As Jews, we have a longstanding commitment to tikkun olam, a commitment to repair the world. We take great pride regarding the impact we have made on so many generations of Americans.
As we celebrate the 20th year of Jewish American Heritage Month, we have made progress toward the goals of JAHM to educate Americans by celebrating Jewish contributions, which promotes understanding and reduces bigotry.
Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone on both sides of the aisle for helping shine a light on this important moment in time, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentlewoman for her eloquence and lucidity in those remarks and for sponsoring this legislation.
I speak very strongly in favor of Ms. Wasserman Schultz's resolution, which recognizes Jewish American Heritage Month and the important contributions that Jewish Americans have made to our country, and I thank her for her continuing leadership within Congress and also within the American Jewish community.
The resolution calls on elected officials, faith leaders, and civil society leaders to condemn and counter all acts of anti-Semitism.
I also want to salute Mr. Schmidt, the distinguished Member from Kansas, for his powerful endorsement of this idea.
The resolution also goes on to urge the House to take ``all possible steps to ensure the safety, security, and dignity of American Jews in all aspects of their lives.'' We are called upon to condemn anti- Semitism and to ensure the safety of the Jewish community, along with everyone else. The appeal is appropriate and timely.
We have to do everything in our power to counter the poison of anti- Semitism, racism, and other forms of bigotry, which are really the gateway to destruction of liberal democracy in our country.
That obligation means fighting anti-Semitism, even when, perhaps especially when, it is expressed and endorsed by officials of the United States Government.
Last week, President Trump finally withdrew the nomination of Ed Martin to serve as the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Mr. Martin's confirmation in the Senate faced many insuperable obstacles. It was doomed.
First of all, he had no prosecutorial experience and no administrative experience running a prosecutor's office.
Secondly, he had shown an extraordinary devotion to the extremists who participated in the violent insurrection against the Capitol and against Congress on January 6, 2021. He represented many of them as a defense lawyer, but he championed the cause of a great number more in not just legal but in political and civil contexts.
He also failed to disclose that he had appeared more than 150 times on Russian state propaganda networks, like Russia Today and Sputnik, when he was nominated to be the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. These are networks that were forced to register as foreign agents of Vladimir Putin's government.
The truth is that his nomination was doomed, regardless. I would say that all of these disqualifications by themselves pale in comparison to Mr. Martin's long and troubling relationship with a Hitler-loving neo- Nazi named Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, who was sentenced to 4 years in prison for breaching the Capitol during the January 6 attack.
Hale-Cusanelli is an outspoken anti-Semite who proudly wears a Hitler mustache, advocates killing the disabled at birth, and told coworkers that Hitler should have finished the job. At his sentencing, a Trump- appointed Federal judge warned him that his actions and statements make everyone, including Jewish people, less safe in our country.
How did Ed Martin, President Trump's pick for one of the most important jobs in the American criminal justice system, react to all the extraordinary statements and the lawless actions of Mr. Hale- Cusanelli? He invited him to go on his podcast multiple times to spout his fascist propaganda. He presented him with an award before a big audience. He praised him as an extraordinary man and an extraordinary leader.
By attending President Trump's inauguration with his good friend, he continued to promote him in establishment political circles, and he headlined a fundraiser together with Mr. Hale-Cusanelli in Florida last year.
By pretending not to know that he was a vicious anti-Semite, even after he clearly had evidence that he was, Mr. Martin continued to legitimize and validate the views of this man.
Mr. Martin's weak protests that he didn't know anything about what his views really were were debunked not only by National Public Radio but by the record of Martin's involvement with other extremists.
For example, Mr. Martin has also praised Jack Posobiec, an anti- Semitic conspiracy theorist with links to the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, and several other white nationalist organizations.
Mr. Martin frequently praises Mr. Posobiec online and calls his anti- Semitic insights valuable and incredible. Mr. Martin's own views are saturated with deranged analogies that dilute the meaning of Nazism and Fascism.
In one episode about the 2024 election, he compared President Joe Biden to Adolf Hitler, which either means that Biden committed genocide or that Hitler was just a regular old politician. In another episode about the election, he repeated the defamatory lie that Jewish people who vote for Democrats are somehow less Jewish than those who vote for Donald Trump.
How did President Trump treat this disturbed individual after his nomination just collapsed across the hallway in the U.S. Senate in the face of this mountain of evidence of his extremism? It was not by cutting him loose, as he should have, but by appointing him to serve in a senior role in the Department of Justice that does not require confirmation by the U.S. Senate.
President Trump named him to be the U.S. pardon attorney, and he named him to be director of a task force on the weaponization of government. This was a perfect assignment, perhaps, for a man who writes vituperative threat letters to Democrats when he hears them say things that he doesn't like.
Mr. Speaker, it makes me wonder why President Trump would put up with this and would insist upon placing him in a position of such critical importance in the Department of Justice. President Trump saw very fine people
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a matter of fundamental importance, that both Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate demand that Ed Martin not have a role in the U.S. Government, given his close association with all of these extremists and his very damning statements in the past, not to mention the fact that he had more than 150 appearances on Russian propaganda state networks.
We should be rejecting anti-Semitism wherever it appears: on the left, on the right, or in the center. It doesn't matter what you call yourself. If you align with hatred against any group, you are a danger to American constitutional democracy, and we should not allow it to gain a foothold in the Government of the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, let us adhere to the spirit of President George Washington, who said in his famous letter in 1790 to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island, that ``the Government of the United States . . . gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.''
If these words are to mean something in our day in the 21st century, we must insist that men like Ed Martin and his anti-Semitic associates and friends have no place representing the people of the United States in our government.
We must pay more than lipservice to the idea of fighting anti- Semitism. We must fight anti-Semitism when we see it in the Government of the United States itself and even amongst our friends.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Let's put the words and the spirit of this resolution into practice.
Mr. Speaker, we have another colleague on our side who now seeks recognition. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).
Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to speak. I had the privilege of just standing in the Speaker's rostrum a few minutes ago and witnessing this debate on an issue that has been important to me ever since I got into public service. I think it is no small coincidence as I was able to wear my kippah up there. I am not sure whether that has happened before as a debate like this happened.
I thank Representative Wasserman Schultz for bringing this forward and saying that we should stand together on anti-Semitism.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that I am new, but a resolution like this that says that people should care about these issues is not the time for people to go and make partisan potshots about anti-Semitism. It is not productive. It is divisive. It is not helpful, particularly in a world where folks on our side could go through a long list and a litany of problems on the other side of the aisle, including the people who actually serve in this room.
This is a problem that, while I appreciate that Democrats want to work on and while I appreciate that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to help on it, I can say from personal experience that the folks who are on my side, from President Trump on down, are committed.
Mr. Speaker, are there bad people? Something I often say in Florida-- as my colleagues work with me, they will find this--anti-Semitism doesn't have a monopoly on either party. Both have it. My side does, too. Yet, where we fight together to take it on and not take shots, we actually begin to solve the problem.
Commentary like that about President Trump is just not helpful because I can say that I have seen it in my State where we don't have many of the problems that we find in other parts of the country because we have tackled these issues, largely in a bipartisan way, including with people who serve here in Congress on the Democratic side.
Mr. Speaker, I say, moving forward, while I am grateful for the desire and the belief to tackle anti-Semitism, there is a time and a place for those kinds of arguments. This was not one.
I thank my colleagues for the resolution and letting us focus on the importance of celebrating achievements that I was not aware of. I will now share with my family where the slow cooker came from. I didn't know. It makes sense given the kind of food that we eat at home.
Yet, I ask us as we tackle this issue to be focused on solving the problem and not making it worse by trying to come up with things that will divide us all.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have not had the good fortune to meet our new colleague from Florida, and I will be sure to come over to introduce myself right after. I am glad the gentleman is in support of the resolution.
The very first sentence of it says: ``The House of Representatives calls on elected officials,'' which presumably includes us, ``faith leaders, and civil society leaders to condemn and counter all acts of anti-Semitism.''
If a discussion of anti-Semitism and the contributions of Jewish Americans is not an appropriate time to talk about anti-Semitism in the government, I wonder what is.
I would be very happy to pursue with my new colleague the subject of Ed Martin. I don't know exactly where he stands on Ed Martin, whether he opposed the President's withdrawal of his nomination after it came out about his close association with a neo-Nazi.
The story behind it, if the gentleman is really interested in it, is National Public Radio confronted him with all the evidence of Hale- Cusanelli's Nazi statements, including: ``Hitler should have finished the job.''
Hale-Cusanelli was also associated with statements like he was right about disabled people and when babies are born disabled, they should be put to death immediately, and so on.
They presented him with a complete litany of it, and Ed Martin's response to it was that National Public Radio is a propaganda network paid for by the government, and he had nothing of substance to say about his good friend's, this ``extraordinary leader,'' anti-Semitic remarks.
It seems that for some people, there is never an opportunity to actually repudiate and denounce anti-Semitism when it actually appears. When it came out that he did know about it, they were forced to withdraw the nomination.
Mr. Speaker, imagine everyone's surprise when Donald Trump decided to then make him the United States pardon attorney overseeing a large office of people considering pardon applications from across the country.
Is that someone that I think can be trusted to deal fairly in terms of minority groups, such as Jewish Americans, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans? I don't think so.
I am sorry the gentleman doesn't think it is appropriate to talk about anti-Semitism when we see it. We just have an honest difference of opinion about that, but if the gentleman is interested in pursuing it some other time, I would love to discuss it with him.
I think my colleague will come to find that we use the floor of the House of Representatives to talk about a lot of things going on. My Republican colleague might be able to stick narrowly to one particular topic. Good for him if that is what he would like to do, but we like to talk about all of our legislation in context here.
This is a matter that is actually called for directly in the very first sentence of the resolution that we are all about to approve.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the distinguished Representative from Florida, for being such a great leader in opposing not just anti-Semitism but all forms of racism, bigotry, and anti- Semitism. One could say it was the original form of racism. It goes back millennia, and it mutates and appears in different guises and different forms and at different periods in history.
Mr. Speaker, anti-Semitism and racism are the gateway to destruction of liberal democracy, so we need to recognize the extraordinary accomplishments of Jewish Americans, along with
Mr. Speaker, let us continue to fight for an America that is going to be open to the contributions of everybody, and I appreciate Ms. Wasserman Schultz' ability to bring before us again the Jewish American Heritage Month resolution. I am delighted to support it, and I urge all Members of the body to vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all of our colleagues who have engaged in this discussion today on both sides of the aisle for their remarks. This is an issue that, although we go off on particulars from time to time where we strongly disagree, at its core, it is an issue where all of us agree as Americans, regardless of our philosophy, regardless of our faith, and regardless of our geography, that there is no space for anti-Semitism in American public life. I come from the State of Kansas. It was one of our favorite sons, Dwight Eisenhower, who was the Supreme Allied Commander at the end of the Second World War who entered the camps, saw the horrors, and ordered that videographers record what was seen so that people would believe because Ike was sure that it was so far beyond the pale and experience of most people what had occurred in the camps and to the Jewish people and others during the war at the hands of the Nazi regime that, without seeing, they would not believe.
I can actually still find those films on some of the streaming services. I commend them to those who have an interest in seeing that moment in history and perhaps feeling just a little piece of what those who saw it in person understood.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is true--I know it was a few years ago--that there are still fewer Jewish people alive today than there were at the start of the Holocaust, that the roughly 6 million who were killed, it has taken all this time to sort of get back numerically to that starting line.
This is not just another issue. Nobody has done it here today, but when we hear people out and about who will compare our current politics to the Nazis or to Hitler, I hope we all will remind them that it is not the same. There are moments to have vigorous debates, but it is not the same. Perhaps when those terms are used, it cheapens a bit of the experience that some of our fellow Americans lived through.
Mr. Speaker, I thank everybody for joining together on this. I encourage all of our colleagues on both sides to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 352.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the bill (H.R. 2243) to amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act and provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, nays 193, not voting 11, as follows:
Messrs. VASQUEZ, KRISHNAMOORTHI, MAGAZINER, and PALLONE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Calling on Elected Officials and Civil Society Leaders to Counter Antisemitism and Educate the Public on the Contributions of the Jewish American Community
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 352) calling on elected officials and civil society leaders to counter antisemitism and educate the public on the contributions of the Jewish American community, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421, nays 1, not voting 11, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of H. Con. Res. 24, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and the legacy of George Millard Allen, Jr., a veteran, a devoted public servant, and a cherished member of the Brunswick, Georgia, community.
Born in Shreveport, Louisiana, he proudly served our Nation in the United States Navy, exemplifying self-sacrifice and patriotism.
After his military service, Mr. Allen continued to serve his community in various capacities, including involvement in local education as a Glynn County School Board member.
Mr. Allen's legacy is characterized by his unwavering commitment to service, both in uniform and in civilian life. He leaves a lasting impact on everyone who has had the privilege of knowing him.
As we remember Mr. Allen, let us celebrate a life well lived and commit to continuing his example of selfless service.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to highlight the heroism of a number of police officers in the Newport Beach Police Department in my district. This, of course, is National Police Week. The heroism of these officers is worth noting.
Just earlier this year, Officer Ragan Grego, Officer Roberto Salcedo, and Officer Jonathan Sunshine valiantly saved the life of a man who was pulled from the ocean after going into cardiac arrest.
On July 4, Officer Kyle Cameron, Officer Michael Querry, Officer Bernadette Sanchez, and Officer Heather Thomson helped save a man's life after he was injured in a violent stabbing.
Sergeant Ricardo Adame, Officer Tony Gallegos, Detective Joshua Granger, Officer Jack McMannis, and Officer Salvador Torres rescued an unconscious woman by pulling her from her vehicle, which was partially submerged in the ocean.
Each of these brave and quick-thinking decisions reflects the fearlessness and ingenuity of the law enforcement officers in Orange County, which I represent.
I am proud to represent such courageous law enforcement officers who tirelessly work to keep our community safe, and I thank them for their service.
Mr. Speaker, I stand on a bipartisan basis with one of my fellow colleagues, Lloyd Doggett, from Travis County, Texas.
Mr. Speaker, today, we became the beneficiaries of seeing the Corps of Engineers from the Fort Worth District visit us to talk about the water needs and the infrastructure of our water programs in Texas.
Today, I rise to recognize Kathleen Spillane, chief of the Civil Works Branch for the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District.
In this role, Kathy oversees a comprehensive portfolio of critical water resources development projects in Texas, including flood risks, management, water supply, and operations.
Kathy manages a civil works program valued at over $1 billion, supervising a team that takes input from not only Members of Congress but also communities throughout Texas. Under her direction, the Fort Worth District's 25 reservoirs, which provide over one-third of Texas' surface drinking water, are effectively managed.
I am very proud of the years Kathy has spent not only with the Corps but in service to the people of the United States of America and, in particular, Texas.
Kathy has done a great job. I am very proud of her. May God be with her as she travels back home to our home State of Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with grave concern about the threat that the Trump administration poses to Social Security.
In February, Elon Musk called the program the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time. Then a few weeks later, he referred to Social Security as the big one to eliminate
These are not empty comments. They are real threats. Under this administration, we are seeing mass firings at Social Security offices, hours-long wait times, delayed checks, websites crashing, and field offices closing.
My district office in Raleigh, North Carolina, has received panicked calls from seniors whose checks didn't arrive on time for the first time ever.
Seniors' benefits are under attack, and Donald Trump is to blame. We will not be silent while Trump and his cronies try to slash the benefits that our seniors have earned over a lifetime of hard work.
Mr. Speaker, from nursery rhymes to classroom wisdom, Mother Goose told stories that shaped childhood, while Mother McKissick shaped minds that built futures.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the remarkable life of Estelle Williams McKissick, affectionately known to everybody as ``Mother McKissick,'' a devoted educator, church leader, and pillar in the Jacksonville, Florida, community.
For 50 years, Mother McKissick poured her heart into the Duval County public school system as a teacher and principal, where she touched the lives of thousands of kids with her passion for learning.
Mother McKissick was a faithful servant of the Bethel Baptist Church where for 47 years she led along with her husband Bishop Rudolph McKissick, Sr.
Together they launched the B.E.S.T. Academy to help struggling students.
Although we mourn her passing, Mr. Speaker, let us carry forward her mission to educate with passion and to serve with love.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Officer Matthew Bowen of the Vacaville Police Department.
Officer Bowen joined the Vacaville Police Department in 2023 and was celebrated by his friends, family, and colleagues for his kindness, humor, work ethic, and unwavering calm under pressure.
On Thursday, July 11, 2024, Officer Bowen was initiating a traffic stop when he was struck by a vehicle, tragically losing his life in the line of duty.
His selfless dedication to protecting others, even in the face of danger, is a testament to his courage and commitment to public service
Officer Bowen is survived by his wife, Elizabeth; and their two young sons, Mason and Everett. It was my privilege to name him my district's Public Safety Hero of the Year for Solano County in 2025.
Mr. Speaker, this Police Week, I am honored to recognize Officer Matthew Bowen's legacy of courage and sacrifice. May he rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, The Nation's Report Card recently showed that our education system is in a state of crisis. There has been a steady and alarming decline. However, right now, we have an opportunity to turn the tide by catalyzing a revolution in school choice across the country.
One-half of the equation is the Educational Choice for Children Act which will expand private school choice to 2 million kids and has been included in the text of the reconciliation bill.
However, the other one-half, the High-Quality Charter School Act, and a tax provision contained therein, would triple the number of kids in charter schools across the country remains missing still.
I am encouraging my colleagues to ensure that we provide support for charter school families in equal measure in a way that will expand opportunity across the country. Together with universal school choice, we will be able to begin a new era of educational excellence in this country.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the life and legacy of former Mayor Melvin Lee ``Kip'' Holden of East Baton Rouge Parish.
Kip was a remarkable leader who committed his career to the people of Baton Rouge, serving as their city councilman from 1984 to 1988, and then their State representative from 1988 to 2004. He then served as mayor for three terms from 2005 to 2016.
As the first African American to lead the city-parish, he broke barriers and built bridges, always putting the people first. Mayor Holden was a trailblazer, a history maker, and a dedicated public servant.
His contributions have left a lasting mark on Baton Rouge and beyond. My prayers are with his family, friends, and all those whom he touched with his leadership.
Mr. Speaker at this time, I request a moment of silence.
Mr. Speaker, in California, they are going at it again. Gavin Newsom and the legislature want to extend California's cap-and- trade tax for another 15 years.
This is a tax that was created by really creating a fake currency of selling the right to make CO2 for manufacturing plants and power plants in California.
All this does is jack up the price for fuel, electricity, et cetera, and pass it along to families who have to pay for these things.
What will this go for?
A portion will go for at least a guaranteed $1 billion per year for the boondoggle in California known as the high-speed rail. I call it the high-cost fail because it has been failing for many, many years and is projected to be probably 25 or 30 years late if it ever gets completed. It has wasted many billions of dollars so far with nothing to show for it.
He wants to lock in this cap-and-trade funding through 2045, all while Californians are paying more and more to keep their lights on and keep gas in their car. It is projected by some of these actions to be as much as $8.43 per gallon according to a USC report.
Get that, Mr. Speaker, $8.50 per gallon for these schemes. We need to fix roads and do a lot of other things besides high-speed rail and sticking taxes on more people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my friend and a beloved champion for south Los Angeles, the late Carl Ballton.
I met Carl through my work at Crystal Stairs where he served on the board for over 20 years, including a decade as chair. Under his leadership, Crystal Stairs grew into a respected institution serving thousands of children and families.
Carl cared deeply about social justice and the Los Angeles community. That passion guided his service beyond Crystal Stairs. He led the Union Bank Foundation and served on the boards of the LA Urban League, United Negro College Fund, Habitat for Humanity, and many other organizations.
Carl and his beloved wife, Lula, used their power for good, especially within the Black community.
His passing is a deep loss for us all, but his legacy lives on in the countless lives he has touched and the institutions he helped build.
Mr. Speaker, I rise during National Police Week to honor the brave men and women in law enforcement who served across eastern North Carolina and our Nation.
From Granville County to Currituck County, Northampton County to Lenoir County and everywhere in between, our officers protect our families and communities daily.
They are there during natural disasters. They are taking a bite out of crime. They keep us safe at our favorite local festivals and parades.
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the Elizabeth City State University Police Department for working so hard to keep our students safe. I recognize our K-9s.
We must also pause to remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Their courage reminds us of the true cost of public safety, and their memories live on in the communities they serve so faithfully.
We are forever grateful to every officer and their families for their service, sacrifice, and strength.
May God watch over them as they stand guard watching over us.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the University of Akron Zips Women's Lacrosse team and their coach, Elaine Jones, as Ohio's 13th Congressional District Champions of the Week.
For the first time ever, this lacrosse team won the Mid-American Conference Lacrosse Championship when they took down Robert Morris University in an overtime thriller to secure their first ever championship.
With just 14 seconds left during overtime, a golden goal from Jaelyn Clinkscales propelled the Akron Zips Women's lacrosse team to victory.
The odds were stacked against this team as they were picked to finish last this season in the MAC Preseason Coaches Poll, but they persevered and beat the odds coming in as the champions.
This historic season was led by Coach Elaine Jones, who also won the MAC Coach of the Year Award.
Congratulations again to the Akron Zips Women's lacrosse team for this outstanding victory. This team is a shining example of why this community is known as the birthplace of champions. I look forward to cheering them on next season.
Mr. Speaker, May is Mental Health Awareness Month, and there are so many groups in Virginia that do incredible work for our community in this space.
One I want to recognize today is Loudoun Serenity House which champions affordable, peer-based services for people living with mental health conditions or who are on the road to recovery from substance abuse.
Serenity House started as a shared dream of two sisters, Melissa and Rachel Hinton, and they established their first recovery house in October of 2020. It has since expanded to serve so many people in our community.
This past weekend, I had the honor of joining them for their annual 5K race. I didn't run, but I did shoot the starting gun. Most importantly, we raised a lot of money, and it was a beautiful day.
We must remember that nearly one in four American adults live with mental health conditions, yet the majority do not receive the care they need. Peer-based programs have been really successful. They are a very affordable way of getting that care.
Happy Mental Health Awareness Month to everyone, and I am grateful for groups like Loudoun Serenity House.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump fired the Librarian of Congress just 1 year shy of completing her 10-year term. He also fired the head of the U.S. Copyright Office, replacing them with his former lawyers and current DOJ appointees. While the President may get to appoint the Librarian, these offices are under the jurisdiction of Congress, and we should be consulted.
I have raised concerns about troubling patterns that we have seen emerging in our country, patterns that echo tactics of regimes in Hungary, North Korea, and Venezuela. These are not governments we admire. Yet, this latest move fits that mold.
The Library of Congress is the world's largest library and a symbol of our commitment to free thought. We have seen growing attacks on libraries and books nationwide. Now it seems even the Library of Congress is not off limits.
While personnel were fired, this is about power, who controls what Americans read, learn, and dream. When you limit access to knowledge, you limit freedom. You send a clear message that questioning authority is no longer welcome.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the ninth time to call on the Trump administration to restore funding for lifesaving food aid for malnourished children.
Mr. Speaker, 11 seconds, every 11 seconds a child dies because of malnutrition. By the time I finish this speech, five more children will have lost their lives.
Their lives could be saved with access to this, Plumpy'Nut, a nutritional supplement manufactured in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, at Edesia Nutrition.
Prior to the Trump administration, Edesia received USAID funding to ship Plumpy'Nut to more than 64 countries. They have the capacity to produce 800 metric tons per week, which would serve 100,000 children.
The Trump administration had said that they plan to continue this funding. They just haven't done so yet. I am calling them once again, for the ninth time, to honor their word to restore funding for emergency food aid so that no child's lives are unnecessarily cut short.
Mr. Speaker, as a former small business owner, I would like to spend a moment talking about the consequences of the administration's policies, both tariffs and the erratic behavior, that have an impact on people like myself, people who owned restaurants for decades, and the thin margins they operate under.
Mr. Speaker, recent surveys have said, 42 percent of small businesses reported increased costs due to the administration's policies, both tariffs and otherwise. I don't think they realized or thought through the effect of these policies on Main Street America.
Over 45 percent of Americans are employed by small business. They are the backbone of Main Street and our economy.
The administration and my colleagues on the other side have to think through the consequences of this erratic behavior on Main Street America.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Utah?
Mr. Speaker, again, it has been quite a week for the House Republicans with the long and late committee hearings as we move forward on our reconciliation package and deliver substantial wins for the American people. Like I mentioned, they were overnight, so anybody that might have got caught snoozing for a few seconds here or there, we don't want to be too hard on them since it was an all- nighter, and we are not in college anymore.
It is significant what we have accomplished. The Energy and Commerce Committee just finished up, and the House Ways and Means Committee earlier. We have got 11 or so committees that have contributed to the one big, beautiful bill, the reconciliation package. We want to see this thing get advanced as we continue to make it into law as the process plays out. We are going to move this conservative and effective agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to be a part of this process and for the work my colleagues here are putting into this, as well.
In addition to the reconciliation work, House Republicans are honored to recognize Police Week and highlight the important work of our law enforcement officers that they do each day.
I just was walking through the Capitol rotunda, and I saw a few police officers here taking a tour of this special place. It is such a great opportunity for us to be able to celebrate the work that they do. They put their lives on the line to keep our communities safe. They support local programs, mentor our youth, and respond to crisis.
They are our trusted partners and neighbors, and House Republicans are continuing to pass legislation to support and equip our law enforcement officers to best serve our families and communities.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for joining me tonight to talk about these important topics.
To do that, I will kick it off right by yielding to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), my good colleague and close friend from the great State of Utah.
Mr. Speaker, this week, we honor the brave men and women who wear the badge, those who serve with courage, professionalism, and heart to keep our communities safe.
National Police Week is a time to give thanks and to reaffirm our support for the law enforcement officers, from Utah to D.C., who put their lives on the line every single day.
These officers aren't just responding to emergencies. They are neighbors, trusted members of our communities, and our role models.
Today, I also want to honor a fallen hero from my home State of Utah, Sergeant Bill Hooser of the Santaquin Police Department. Sergeant Hooser gave his life in the line of duty, and this week his name is being added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in our Nation's Capital.
Mr. Speaker, may God bless the Hooser family. May He continue to comfort them and be with them always. We will never forget Bill's service or sacrifice.
House Republicans are taking action to support those who serve. This week we are advancing commonsense legislation that equips, respects, and protects our law enforcement community.
Mr. Speaker, I thank every officer, every family who has lost a hero in the line of duty. Their service matters. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten.
We back the blue. We trust our officers, and we will fight to protect those who protect us.
God bless our law enforcement community. God bless the Hooser family, and may God continue to bless our great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the greatest State in the country. I appreciate his willingness to be here to support this week and his message on this really important Police Week.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scott Franklin), my good colleague and veteran, an all-around great legislator from the great State of Florida.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my well-rested friend and colleague from Utah for the time.
Mr. Speaker, this evening as we recognize National Police Week, I rise to honor the brave men and women in uniform who serve with courage, integrity, and selflessness.
Every day, law enforcement officers put themselves in harm's way to protect our communities and uphold the rule of law. They respond without hesitation, often under dangerous and unpredictable circumstances.
A recent incident in my district highlights what that commitment looks like. Last month, in Bartow, Florida, a man who had brutally assaulted and held his own parents hostage later opened fire on responding officers during an intense confrontation at a local shopping center. Despite the danger, members of the Polk County Sheriff's Office and the Bartow Police Department responded swiftly to protect innocent lives.
During the confrontation, Deputy Edwin Alexander was shot in the arm, and Officer Mark Sills was shot in the chest, his body armor likely saving his life.
Thanks to their training and resilience and the grace of God, both are expected to fully recover. Their actions are a powerful reminder of the bravery shown by those who serve. They stepped in to shield others, knowing full well the risks they faced. Their story reminds us why we pause this week to honor law enforcement.
National Police Week is not only a time to honor those who were killed in the line of duty, but also to thank those who continue to answer the call with distinction.
These officers, along with thousands of others across the country, deserve not only our gratitude but our unwavering support. May God bless them, their families, and all who protect and defend our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crank), who is a new member this term. He took over for a good friend of mine. We have a very common district. I represent Hill Air Force Base, and he represents the Colorado Springs area, which we all know is where the Air Force Academy is located. With a lot of shared connection to the Colorado Springs area and his district in Colorado and Utah first, both being strong Air Force communities, I am thrilled to be working with such a great new member of the Conference.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today on National Police Week to honor the great men and women who protect us every single day, who wear the badge, and who protect our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I thank specifically our El Paso County Sheriff's Office and our Colorado Springs Police Department and all of the local law enforcement in Colorado. They put themselves on the front lines every single day.
I have had the pleasure of doing ride-alongs with our sheriff's office and our Colorado Springs Police Department. I say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that if you haven't stood in their shoes, don't be critical of the job that they do because if you take the time to go do it--and many times we have people who come and want to shadow a Member of Congress for a day--it is a great opportunity to do that. Take a minute and shadow a police officer for a day. Go on a ride-along and learn what they do. I have, as I said, had the privilege to do that many times.
I recall being on a ride-along in the middle of the night, total darkness, walking up on a car. The police officer has a flashlight, and had I not been there, that police officer would have been there by themselves, and essentially they were there by themselves. I
That is the danger that the men and women of law enforcement face each and every day.
It is easy for us to come here to Washington, D.C., and to the Capitol every day and cast our votes. Why? Because we have police who protect us each and every day, back in our home communities, but also right here at the U.S. Capitol.
In my former life, I was a talk show host. I did many other things, but as a talk show host, in my community one time, there was a shooting. It was unfortunate. It was a young man who got pulled over. Police were questioning this young man, and as he was talking to the police, he turned and started to run. As he turned and started to run, he reached into his shorts, and he started to pull out a gun. By the way, they had been told before a description of this young man and that he had a gun. As he turned to run, he was fired upon by the police officer, one shot, and it killed the young man, sadly. There was another man with him who didn't resist. By the way, he survived and did well.
There were some members of my community who stood up and wanted to make an issue out of that, and I kept reiterating the fact that unless you stood in their shoes, what would you do? What would you do if you were the person who had to make that split-second decision about whether or not you were going to fire to save your life or to take the life of another person?
I also met, by the way, with that police officer after that. He was very emotional, and he told me that he had spent nearly 20 years patrolling that community, 20 years sitting with young girls who had been sexually assaulted as victims and with their families and helping them through that, 20 years dealing with someone in that community who had been murdered. He was their advocate. He was their protector for 20 years.
All of a sudden, when his life was threatened and a gun was pulled on him, there were some in the community that didn't support him.
We don't ever want that to be the case in the United States of America. For me, unless you stand in their shoes, you can't be critical.
They protect our communities, and I want to emphasize that our local law enforcement in Colorado Springs, in El Paso County, in southern Colorado, choose to work with Federal authorities. They are not ICE agents, but they go to a lot of places. They work with our Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to root out people who are breaking the law. They help protect our communities.
That same police officer who you complain about when you get pulled over because you had a lead foot, Mr. Speaker, that same police officer is the police officer who you call in the middle of the night when you hear a noise in the backyard and something at the door.
We have to protect the rule of law, and we only do that through protecting our men and women of law enforcement.
A few weeks ago in Colorado Springs, we had a raid by the DEA of a nightclub where over 100 people were detained and arrested for criminal activity. There was trafficking of adults and trafficking of children. There were drugs. There was all sorts of illicit behavior there.
The men and women of the El Paso County Sheriff's Office, the Colorado Springs Police Department, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and many others worked hand in hand to make sure that the citizens of my community stayed safe through that all.
I also thank the men and women of the United States Capitol Police, whom I walk past every day. Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member, as they go past our police officers, not to grumpily look at them, not to pass by and act like they don't exist, but to take a moment to shake their hand, tell them thank you, and look them in the eye and tell them how much you appreciate them.
We couldn't conduct our business, the business of the United States Government, in this Capitol Building if we didn't have those men and women who stand watch for us each and every day, and we need to be very thankful for them, as well.
I will continue to support the police as long as I serve here in the people's House. It is important to me, to my community, and, most importantly, to the rule of law. If we don't respect the rule of law, we will lose everything in the United States of America.
We have to have a system that our Founders established that allows us to know that we will be treated fairly. We pass the laws, and those laws are then carried out by law enforcement all across the country. We expect them to be carried out in the traditions of our Founding Fathers, in the tradition that people are treated fairly, that if they get pulled over for speeding, they will be treated the same way.
We have the protections of our Constitution that our police abide by. We are so fortunate in America to have the men and women who protect us each and every day, and we must continue to protect them and stand with them.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for his comments and anecdotes on his support for the police. It is very important.
I thank my colleagues for being here tonight to show their support for law enforcement and recognize the sacrifices that these officers and their families make on a daily basis.
National Police Week is a great opportunity to stop to thank our local police officers, but we really should be committing to do this throughout the year.
I started a little tradition. I actually did it on the walk over from the parking lot to the University of Utah Huntsman Center basketball game. There are always a few police officers there directing traffic for the few hours of that. I had four boys under the age of 10 at the time. I was trying to help get them out of their shell, talk to other adults, and be a little bit more engaging with folks. I have kind of forced this on them, and now they have taken it on their own. When we see a police officer, we walk up and look them in the eye, he or she, and say thank you.
I shared this with the local police force back home, and it is just one of those things that, as they do the big things for our community, we should be able to do the small things.
Teaching my boys to say thank you to police officers, the most basic, simple, fundamental elements of being a dad, in my opinion, shouldn't be a question of whether you do it. Watching them walk over to a complete stranger, but they are in uniform, and they look up at them in the eyes--they regularly don't look at folks in the eyes. It is always a little awkward for them to learn that interaction--and they just say, ``Thank you, Officer.'' It is a neat experience and something that I am glad I started.
The smallest thing is very much appreciated by those in our community who do the greatest and biggest things for us. We always feel they are one phone call away. They are ubiquitous in our community.
The police officers whom I serve, their chiefs and their leadership are some of the best in our community, and I could go county by county and talk about them. Their sacrifice is very much appreciated, and they do the good work that is needed in Utah.
I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for highlighting the Capitol Police, as well as the D.C. Metropolitan Police, as we spend a lot of our time back here, as well. They do an exceptional and professional job.
They also beat us in the Congressional Football Game for Charity that we do each year. I am nursing an injury from the soccer charity game. I have turned 45 this year, and I think I have finally realized that I am no longer 18. This has been a very important lesson to learn. I am no longer invincible, and I need to act my age when it comes to some of these intramural types of sports.
The Capitol Police always play the Members of Congress in an annual charity match that goes to supporting some of their priorities, and since I have been in Congress, they have always beaten us. They are quite the athletes.
Over the last few weeks, we have been talking a lot about the big, beautiful bill, as it has been named. This morning, the Ways and Means Committee adjourned from our markup after 18 straight hours. We went through the night. Other committees did that as well. The Energy and Commerce Committee recently finished up, just a few hours ago.
I want to express how proud I am of the work that went into this, the countless amendments that the Democrats also put up to create an opportunity to dialogue, to create an opportunity to debate. That is important.
When we are in the minority, Republicans put up amendments to constant legislation that the Democrats are doing, and it does create opportunities for dialogue. I think once we go through that, there is obviously a lot of posturing and messaging going on, but there is real communication.
After a housing affordability amendment was put up--it ultimately failed, of course, as most of these things do; they are usually put up as posturing--I walked over to the gentleman from the Los Angeles area who put up the amendment and showed him some of the things that I am working on, some of the market-based solutions to this.
We have to find some real, sustainable fixes to housing affordability and making sure first-time home buyers have an opportunity to get in there. This created an opportunity for me to share with him what some of my stakeholders back home are doing. I set up meetings for these guys from Utah with HUD a little while ago.
It is a really neat opportunity to see these types of things happening off-camera. There is real collaboration going on. This is a moment. This bill, as we advance this, will be a reconciliation bill. Traditionally, in my recent memory, these have been majority-rule votes. The opposition party doesn't vote for these. These go on party lines. The vast majority of what is in this particular one, we actually have a lot of bipartisan support on it.
This tax bill that we are doing, the Energy and Commerce Committee is doing a lot of other things regarding their committee of jurisdiction. Candidly, this has taken several years in the making.
We have known that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is going to expire at the end of this year. We have an opportunity to reestablish and to make permanent where we can some of the really progrowth, positive provisions that come out of that piece of legislation.
Other areas of the tax code that have been adjusted or dialed, we are going to try some new things, only for a few years, though, to see how they work out. That is the nature of tax policy. The things that were put for a time limit from 2017 have, in my opinion, stood the test of time and been a strong proponent for progrowth tax policy. We are going to make those permanent in this bill.
There are other things that are going to be newer to the tax code, and we will try them out to see how it plays out in 4 years to give us time to be able to analyze and see how they are being effective and overall impact.
This is going to provide real relief to American families, workers, and businesses. The bill expands the child tax credit, provides critical tax breaks for small businesses and the working class, and makes America more competitive on the global stage. It also makes the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, like I mentioned, preventing a massive tax hike that would otherwise happen at the end of this year.
This moment is why I worked hard on the Ways and Means Committee. I look forward to what we can accomplish as we move this through the process, through the Committee on the Budget, through the Committee on Rules, on to the House floor, over to the Senate, and, hopefully, signed by the President in relatively short order.
I am grateful that several provisions stemmed from legislation that my team and I have been pushing over the last several months, including a permanent increase to the child tax credit and additional support for families in the range of $500. Families are going to get a $2,500 tax credit with respect to their dependents.
It also makes the adoption tax credit partially refundable up to $5,000 to help children find permanent, loving families by removing income as a barrier to adoption. That is key.
The concept of refundability is a sticking point. Republicans constrained that a little bit more. Democrats want to overextend it. There is debate on where that sweet spot is.
We are making a significant portion of this adoption tax credit refundable and giving us an option for more American families to be able to choose adoption as an option. One of my siblings adopted all four of his children from infancy. It is tough. It is expensive.
There is a lot that goes into it just on the financial side, let alone the emotional side and everything associated with it. It is important to do, and we are doing some of that in this legislation.
We are also increasing the HSA contribution limit and cap for small business expensing, reinstating a temporary deduction for charitable contributions, and 529 accounts will now extend to include career training and credentialing.
We are providing income on tax-exempt status to servicemembers serving in dangerous regions, and we are renewing the successful Opportunity Zone program, which delivers an additional $100 billion of investment over the next decade for rural and distressed communities or both.
We are investing in education and creating new tax credits for individuals who contribute to scholarship organizations. I am also very passionate about teaching the next generation about the power and value of compounding interest and capitalism and how it can help them get ahead.
The money accounts for growth and advancement--again, a catchy tune here--being the MAGA accounts, will demonstrate to American youth the power of compounding interest and the possibilities that can come with investing.
Beginning on January 1, 2026, parents of children under 8 years old can open a MAGA investment account for their children. The government would seed accounts for newborns with a $1,000 Federal deposit.
These investment accounts would be eligible to receive contributions from family members, employers, nonprofits, and government entities. They will help set up the next generation for financial well-being--not even just well-being, but literacy on what this can actually do.
It is not just these individual accounts. If taught right and if we were able to educate properly on this and people can see it in their own lives, this will give them a chance to learn the value of this and that it affects every decision that they make.
Instead of spending a few extra dollars here, I could put it into savings, an interest-yielding account. What that does in the course of 10 years is far more beneficial than what that short-term gain would have been with that individual purchase. Those types of lessons can be learned when people have some stake in the game.
There are endless more provisions from this tax bill that I could share from our markup last night that will deliver on the Trump administration's and the congressional Republicans' priorities and make a lasting impact on the success of our children, workers, and businesses.
I look forward to watching these policies work through the reconciliation process and eventually becoming law.
Mr. Speaker, I am joined tonight by a bipartisan group of Members who have come together to take to the floor tonight to call for Members of Congress to be banned from trading stocks.
This is a reform that is long overdue. When people elect us to office, they should be able to trust that their Members of Congress are acting in the best interests of the country, not the best interests of their own personal finances. When Members of Congress are
As Members of Congress, we have access to all sorts of information that the average member of the public does not: what might be put into a bill or taken out of a bill, or what might be put into a budget or taken out of a budget. This is material information, and Members of Congress should not have the advantage of that insider information and use that advantage to engage in stock trading.
Also, Members of Congress should not be conflicted when we have to decide about what to vote for or against. Members of Congress should not be in a position of thinking about what the impact on their stock portfolio may be. We should be making decisions based just on what is best for the American people.
The American people recognize that this is a reform that is long overdue. Poll after poll has shown upwards of 90 percent of the American people supporting a ban on Members trading stocks.
This is an issue that has been around for a while. Yet, in just the last few weeks, we have achieved significant momentum. In the last 3 weeks, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader in the House; President Trump; and today, the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, have all come out in favor of this reform. That is real momentum that we should carry forward to the finish line.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leader is for it. The Republican leader is for it. The President of the United States is for it. Let's get it done.
I am joined tonight by a number of Members who represent, I think, the full ideological diversity of the House of Representatives--both sides, liberal, conservative, moderate, people who understand that the American people expect better of this body.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield to some of my partners in this effort, Members who have had the courage to stand up and say that we need to enact this reform and ban Members of Congress from trading stocks once and for all.
I am going to start by recognizing a Member from the Republican side who I have had several great conversations with on this issue. He has introduced a bill that would put a congressional stock trading ban into effect.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I thank him for taking this bull by the horns.
Mr. Speaker, as I have heard some of the good ol' boys say: It is cold in here. Maybe we need to start cutting some hogs.
If you know what that means, you know what that means.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address this body on the issue of stock trading by Members of Congress. We are public servants and stewards of our community. Why does Congress think we are above the law?
For years, Members of Congress have gotten rich on the backs of hardworking Americans' taxpayer money. Members sit on committees and go to private briefings where they get privileged information from companies informing us if the stock price will skyrocket or plunge.
We appropriate money to different economic sectors that may benefit our own portfolios, and who gets the short end of the stick? Hardworking, red-blooded Americans.
That is why I introduced the End Congressional Stock Trading Act to level the playing field and restore public trust in Congress. Every time I go back to east Tennessee, I get asked by my constituents: Tim, why hasn't Congress done anything to stop this?
My answer is simple. It says in my notes that Congress doesn't have the stomach--but the reality is we don't have the guts, Mr. Speaker--to sacrifice their own bottom line for the good of the country. I hope I am surprised, and I hope that Congress takes action. I doubt we will, seriously.
Mr. Speaker, we are public servants. We serve the people who we represent. We aren't elected to come up to Washington and get rich while our constituents oftentimes struggle to make ends meet.
I am here to serve the least amongst us and try my dadgum hardest to make the lives of east Tennesseans better, Mr. Speaker. I don't sell stocks. I have a mutual fund. I talked to my broker today, Tommy Siler, and I am proud to say that I have recovered from any losses, and I am almost at $11,000 with my mutual fund. Mainly, I trade baseball cards and comic books on eBay, and that is currently my portfolio.
President Trump said that if my colleagues pass the bill banning stock trading for Members of Congress, he would sign it. Let's see if we have the guts to stand up and do what is right.
When I was mayor of Knox County, there were things that would come before me. I would bring in my attorney. I would bring my buddy, Mike Jones, and I would bring in my dear friend Colonel Julian, who has since passed, Mike would tell me if it was legal or if it was illegal.
He would say: Well, boss, it is legal.
I would look at Colonel Julian, and Colonel Julian would tell me if it was ethical or not.
Mr. Speaker, this may be legal, but dadgummit, it is surely not ethical. We know what is right. We need to do what is right.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor. It has been a pleasure working with the gentleman, who has been straight up, and I dig that.
Mr. Speaker, when I first started running for Congress a number of years ago, my wife and I sold all of our individual stocks, and I made a commitment that if I were elected, I wouldn't trade individual stocks while in office because being a Representative isn't just a title; it is a responsibility that we all have, and that responsibility is to serve the people and not our own financial interests.
Let's face it: Too many Americans have lost faith in government. They wonder whether their elected officials are truly working for them. We can't allow that doubt to grow. We have the power to help fix it.
That is why I have long supported legislation to ban Members of Congress from trading individual stocks, and I am encouraged that we are working together in a bipartisan way to get this done.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Magaziner, Representative Roy, and others who have been working together for some time on this. We have a lot of momentum. Today, as was said, Speaker Johnson said that he supports a stock trading ban. Leader Jeffries supports a stock trading ban. President Trump has said that he would sign a stock trading ban into the law.
Again, this is not a partisan issue. Poll after poll shows overwhelming support. Approximately 80 percent of Americans want Congress to pass a ban on Members stock trading. They want to know that their Representatives are here to serve the public, not to profit from their positions.
Recent events have only made this more urgent. Last month, markets moved sharply after the reversal of tariffs that had been threatened. Just hours before that announcement, there were posts on social media. I don't need to recount all of that now, and we don't know exactly who had advance notice of that decision or whether anybody acted on it, but that is exactly the problem.
Americans should never ever have to wonder if public officials are using any sort of inside knowledge to enrich themselves. That is why we need to act now. We need a law that says, clearly and without exception, if you serve in Congress, you cannot trade individual stocks. No more gray areas. No more questions; just clear rules that restore trust and put the public interest first. We have the support. We have the momentum, and we have a responsibility to get this done.
Speaker Johnson, please work with us. Allow a vote on a stock trading ban. Let's begin the long process to restore confidence in this body. The time to act is now.
Mr. Speaker, the stock trading bill that I am leading was originally introduced by Abigail Spanberger, the Representative from Virginia. I know if she is watching, she is smiling to see all of us coming together and to see the progress that has
I give her a lot of credit for getting the ball rolling along with the next gentleman who I am going to introduce, who has been a fantastic partner and co-lead on the TRUST in Congress Act. I know that we are going to get this done, in large part due to his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. Magaziner has been an excellent partner in this effort, and it is now long overdue.
I am glad he mentioned my friend, Abigail Spanberger. Both of us went to the University of Virginia. That is part of the reason why we conspired together on this bill, when we were talking about how ridiculous it was that, on both sides of the aisle, there were blatant abuses of this trust that the American people put in the people who represent them not to violate that trust by trading securities for- profit on the very issues they are supposed to be voting on objectively to benefit the United States of America. Yet, that is precisely what has happened.
Mr. Speaker, this is now the fourth Congress in a row that I have introduced the TRUST in Congress Act, now with Mr. Magaziner, and I think it is long overdue.
In the 119th Congress, we have 12 Republican cosponsors and 60 Democratic cosponsors. I say to my Republican colleagues: Get with the program because 12 is not enough. We need to get everybody on board here.
I am glad the Speaker has said that he would support it. I am glad the President of the United States, President Trump, has said that he would sign it. Yet, we have to be realistic about what we are talking about.
We vote every day on massive issues. We vote about healthcare policies involving pharmaceutical companies that make billions of dollars, massive insurance companies, and massive hospital corporations. We vote on intellectual property issues in the Committee on the Judiciary. We vote on antitrust issues. We vote on all manners of issues, including Defense Department policies, that involve hundreds of billions of dollars in the capital markets. Yet, Members are voting on that while trading stocks on a daily basis.
Capitol Trades reports that 113 Members of Congress made 9,261 trades in 2024 involving 706 million shares or other assets. We had a Democrat who made 4,000 trades for a 20 percent return. We had a Republican who made almost 2,000 trades for a 23 percent return; a Democrat, 575 trades, a 22 percent return.
I could keep going down the list.
We had Members of Congress in 2024: a Republican with a 149 percent return; a Democrat with a 142 percent return; a Democrat with a 124 percent return; a Republican with a 111 percent return; a Democrat with a 105 percent return.
I could keep going down. There is a lot of Americans who would like to have returns along those lines. In fact, there are now funds out there that follow and trade along with the congressional Members of Congress to see what they are trading. That is ridiculous.
You should come to Congress. You should take your assets and move them into widely held index funds. It should be able to be done on a tax basis. Come in here. Clean the decks. Go represent your constituents. It is long past due. Let's move the bill. Let's get it to the floor. Mr. Speaker, bring it to a vote, and let's put trust back in Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the American people expect and deserve to know that their elected officials are working for them, not lining their own pockets.
When Members of Congress trade individual stocks while in office, it fuels distrust, undermines public confidence, and casts a shadow over the work of this institution. Even the perception of impropriety weakens the bond between the government and the governed.
Members of Congress have unparalleled access to market-moving information and the ability to shape laws and regulations that can impact entire industries. That power must never be used to enrich ourselves or our families.
There is simply no legitimate reason for Members of Congress, their spouses, or their dependent children to be trading individual stocks, period. This bipartisan legislation would close that dangerous loophole once and for all. It would require lawmakers to place certain investments into qualified blind trusts, prevent conflicts of interest, and restore accountability where it is so desperately needed.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor the TRUST in Congress Act, and I thank Representatives Magaziner and Roy for their leadership on this critical bipartisan legislation. It is a long overdue, commonsense step toward restoring integrity in public service and rebuilding the trust of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in both Chambers to join us in passing this essential reform.
Mr. Speaker, I now recognize someone who is new to Congress but who I know is passionate about this issue and I believe campaigned on it, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bresnahan).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the effort to ban congressional stock trading because public service must never be compromised by private financial interest. The American people deserve to know that we are acting on their behalf, not for our own portfolios.
That is why I have already begun placing all of my assets into a blind trust, to align my conduct with the principles behind this important reform.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representatives Roy and Magaziner for their bipartisan leadership on this issue. Their work demonstrates the kind of accountability and integrity that Congress needs more of. Their efforts are a critical step forward toward rebuilding trust in our institutions, and I look forward to working with them to codify this into law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury), a good friend and a leader on the Oversight Committee who I know is committed to strong ethics reform.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin with a simple fact: No Member of Congress should be trading stocks. Period. None.
That is why I believe we must ban congressional stock trading and why I am proud to cosponsor this act here in Congress.
The American people deserve to know that their Members of Congress are working for them, not for stock portfolios; that their decisions, their policies, and their priorities are in the public interest and not the interest of private profit.
Let's be real, we have all seen it here, even over the last several weeks, as Members of this body have traded stocks while working on policies currently before Congress, possible insider trading in the midst of the President's trade wars. A President and a Speaker who both declared, it is a good time to buy while Members went out and did it: oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, Big Tech, and yes, AI.
Let me be clear: Not only is it wrong and immoral, it must be made illegal. We will be investigating anyone who engaged in insider trading, but banning stocks is only one piece of restoring faith in our public institutions, especially in a time when billionaires are buying elections, and Cabinet positions, and setting themselves up for sweetheart deals.
Let me also say this: We must get big money out of politics and get it out now. We have to end Citizens United, restore the power of the people, end gerrymandering, strengthen our ethics rules, and restore access to the ballot box. That means passing our For The People Act that was blocked multiple times in this Chamber, passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and passing the Freedom to Vote Act.
This is not a partisan issue; this is an American issue about protecting our democracy, protecting our people, protecting our communities, and protecting our planet.
Mr. Speaker, let's do the right thing. Let's ban stock trading and restore our faith in American democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I will take a second to thank all of my colleagues on both sides who came out tonight. This is a busy week in Congress. We have got reconciliation markups going on. Peoples' schedules are busy, but the fact that we have so many Members from both sides of the aisle who have the courage to stand up and say something that may not be popular with everyone in this Chamber and have also made it enough of a priority to come tonight is a great credit to each of them. I thank them for their leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mills), who I know has also been a champion of this issue for some time now.
Mr. Speaker, I don't need a written speech or a prepared document to say how common sense this is.
For far too long, people have basically turned politics into a career which was never its intent. It was meant to serve we the people. There is something that is mutually exclusive: You cannot serve yourself and personal enrichment and serve the public at the same time.
We know for a fact that even within the National Defense Authorization Act that you can get language put in, provided to you by companies that allow for certain amounts of money to be sole sourced or in some ways appropriated to defense companies that they can then turn around and invest in.
How is that not insider trading when it is public knowledge on what is out there, but not public knowledge on what is being put into the NDAA during the markups?
Insider trading must stop. I can tell you that banning stock trading for Members of Congress and their spouses should not be something that is in question.
We must rebuild the actual image of Congress. We must rebuild the image of the Federal Government, where we are actually here to truly serve the people. I think this is a paramount step in us making sure, with friends and colleagues like Representative Magaziner, we are able to move forward and rebuild the trust, the hope, and rebuild this institution to be what it once was.
Our Founding Fathers, many of them in the private sector, were very successful businessmen. They served in an effort to try and get back to their businesses because they actually made more money there, but it has changed where people are making more money while in Congress while stock trading than they can in the private sector.
The same way that a plan B for failed male athletes shouldn't be women's sports, a plan B for failed entrepreneurs shouldn't be Congress and stock trading.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I ask everyone to move forward in guaranteeing that we rebuild the confidence in government and we restore what it means to serve we the people.
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear to me, while it may not always come across your television, radio, or cell phone, I believe that the overwhelming majority of Members of Congress are good and decent people. Whether we agree on everything is not factored in on what I just said.
Unfortunately, as polls continue to indicate, the American people don't believe that that is the way it is. Congress right now is about as popular as a soiled baby's diaper, and we are pushing it down further by failing to hold ourselves accountable.
It is absolutely ridiculous that Members of Congress can sit in a committee hearing room or get some information by just moving around this city and then come in here and vote on something that would enrich them.
This is wrong, and one of the reasons that you are not going to find anybody else coming in here taking an opposite position is because they are ashamed. If they are ashamed that means they know they are wrong. If they know they are wrong, they ought to support this legislation or tell the public I believe in enriching myself and I am not going to support it.
Now, I represent a place that sometimes is referred to as ``Chiefs Kingdom.'' I know some of you are probably offended because we win all the time, but in the recent years, we are accustomed to seeing Andy Reid, Patrick Mahomes, and Chris Jones lead one of the greatest teams in history. They won three championships overall, two in the last 3 years. They can pass. They can run. They can kick. They can play defense, and they are not too shabby at their kicking game.
But there is one thing they cannot do, one thing that they cannot do even as a Super Bowl champ: They cannot bet on football. They cannot play football and then bet on who is going to win. They can, but then they will get kicked out of the league.
That makes no sense. They could fall down. They could miss a pass on purpose. There are all kinds of things they could do that are wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity to be just a tiny voice in what is going on because this is right and not doing it is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island, and I am honored to follow my friend from Kansas City, Reverend Emanuel Cleaver.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with him. This is a bipartisan issue. Today, I rise to introduce the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act. My bill is complementary to Senator Josh Hawley over in the Senate.
If you travel the Fourth District of the great State of Missouri, just south of Reverend Cleaver's district in Kansas City, and you ask the average person, Mr. Speaker, if Members of Congress should be able to trade individual stocks, they will say no. That is not good for our Nation. It is not good for this body. It is not good for rebuilding trust in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.
The reason we introduced this is because there have been widespread reports of suspicious transactions associated with public officials and it raises a lot of concerns about what we are doing here in this great body.
If you want to run for the U.S. House of Representatives or you want to serve the people, Mr. Speaker, that is fine. If you want to trade stocks, then go to Wall Street.
I am the chair of the Oversight, Investigations, and Regulations Subcommittee for the Small Business Committee, I am concerned about Main Street. I am concerned about the 772,047 individuals that I represent. That is what we should be here about, not trying to get rich on trading stocks.
My bill is bicameral. It is bipartisan. As I said before, it is led in the Senate by Senator Josh Hawley. President Trump has announced that he will support this legislation to make this law. He will sign it into law.
Today, Speaker Johnson indicated his support for the underlying policy and the Members gathered here tonight prove that this is a bipartisan mission, to right the ship, to get us back on the right track.
This legislation has workable compliance deadlines. It allows trading in broad-based index and mutual funds and requires real enforcement. It has teeth with substantial penalties for violations. As public servants, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, Mr. Speaker, and avoid the mere appearance of corruption and impropriety.
Unfortunately, too many Members of Congress are engaging in suspicious stock trades based on nonpublic information to enrich themselves. These gross violations of the public trust make it clear: We must finally take action and take a stand to ban Members and their spouses from owning or selling individual stocks.
It is simple. Public service should never be a pathway to private wealth, especially when everyday Americans are struggling. This is about rebuilding trust in what we do.
Congress works for the people, not to enrich our bank account. I am proud to join my colleagues tonight on the other side of the aisle. It is kind of refreshing to have something that we
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for holding this Special Order hour.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership from the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) for bringing us together tonight.
Mr. Speaker, imagine that, Democrats and Republicans in this Chamber, in this town, wanting to do something about corruption. That is a good thing. I hope the American people are paying attention.
I will tell you it is clear from conversations with my constituents in western Pennsylvania, and I know from people all over this country, they think our system is rigged: rigged against hardworking people, rigged for giant corporations and the rich and the powerful. That kind of corporate power doesn't just happen. It is enabled by pliable politicians and by a Supreme Court that opens the floodgates to unlimited super-PAC money that corrupts our elections.
We should fight that. If you want to fight corruption, let's start with getting that unlimited corporate money out of our politics.
You have to have some credibility and this Chamber, this town, this Congress, needs more credibility. One way to build that back is to start with banning congressional stock trading. I think it is an easy place to start. You talk to people in western Pennsylvania, you talk to people all over this country who think it is ridiculous that folks in power and elected office get rich off the inside and sensitive information that we learn in our jobs serving the people, representing the people who elect us.
No one should be using that information to enrich themselves, to get rich off of public trust. I am proud to be here in a bipartisan fashion, joining with Members of both parties who support this commonsense, anticorruption idea.
Let's ban congressional stock trading. Wherever we see corruption, we should be calling it out. We should be fighting it. We should take it on. Our democracy turns on public trust and people having some faith in their elected Representatives.
What we are railing against here, Members trading stock based on information we learn, that erodes that public trust. Let's be smart. Let's come together. Let's call out this corruption for what it is.
I again commend the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) for bringing us together.
Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress are here to serve their constituents and the American people; not themselves. Unfortunately, we see this year after year with Members of Congress making lucrative stock trades while their constituents struggle to make ends meet.
We must restore public trust in this body, and that starts with each of us in this Chamber. There is no reason why Members of Congress should be able to trade stocks while in office, period. American taxpayers deserve better.
That is why I am proud to have helped introduce the TRUST in Congress Act. This bipartisan bill would prohibit Members of Congress, in addition to their spouses and children, to trade stocks while in office.
This isn't rocket science. This is common sense. Let's just restore trust back in Congress.
Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress should not be allowed to trade stock. This should be a no-brainer. Members of Congress should not be allowed to profit off of their service. When Members are in a position of directly benefiting from the manipulation of the stock market, and they profit off of their position, it is corruption, plain and simple.
Just last month, numerous Members and Cabinet officials profited off of Donald Trump's tariff chaos announcement. This should not be acceptable. I know a majority of Americans agree. Nearly 90 percent support a ban.
Every time a Member cashes in, it undermines public trust. That is why I have always supported a ban for elected officials and their families, because exploiting inside information to enrich yourself should never be allowed. It is time we come together to stop this corruption and pass an immediate stock trading ban.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for her remarks. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Ansari), a new Member who has come in and has already been making a mark. I know she is here with the intent of being a reformer, which is what we need in Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of long-overdue legislative measures to prevent Members of Congress from trading stock.
The original STOCK Act passed in 2012 bars a Member of Congress, the President, Vice President, and high-level staff from engaging in insider trading or otherwise using nonpublic information for their own benefit. The bill also included important updates to financial transparency by requiring these high-ranking government officials to quickly disclose financial transactions to the public.
In fact, it is because of this bill's provision that we know that Members of both parties are still consistently able to use nonpublic information to benefit their own stock portfolios.
Incidents like these break our trust with the American people, with our constituents. That is why I am so proud to cosponsor Congressman Magaziner's TRUST in Congress Act. This bill would require Members of Congress and their immediate family members to divest from individual stock holdings or place them into a qualified blind trust during their entire tenure in Congress.
In practice, it would ban Members of Congress from trading stocks. This is just common sense. Members of Congress should be prohibited from using nonpublic information for our own benefit.
Polling has shown that nearly 86 percent of Americans support barring Members of Congress from trading stock, so this should be easy and it should be bipartisan. The TRUST in Congress Act and bills like it would prevent corruption and restore trust in Congress.
Before I was sworn in to Federal office, I made a personal effort to sell stocks that I had and to ensure that my financial future would not and could not be dependent on information that I might become privy to as a Member of the House of Representatives.
It is about more than following a set of rules. It is about acting ethically and respecting the power of the offices we hold.
In a time where the President of the United States is expected to accept a plane worth hundreds of millions of dollars from a foreign nation, respecting a moral code and setting a strong example could not be more important. I am heartened to see my colleagues on both sides of the aisle standing in support of this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Ansari for her thoughts on this matter. Before I yield to the next Member, let me just preface this by saying, again, we have had a big couple of weeks in this fight to ban Members of Congress from trading stocks.
Not only rank-and-file Members, but leaders have been coming out in favor of this commonsense reform: Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, today Speaker Johnson, and President Trump.
I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a leader who has been out in front on this issue for a long time. Our Assistant Democratic Leader is a longtime cosponsor of the legislation that I have reintroduced to ban Members of Congress from trading stocks.
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost let me thank my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, whose clarion call on this issue, his demand to an end of corruption, an end
Our 26th President, Teddy Roosevelt, once said that no man who is corrupt, no man who tolerates corruption in others can do his duty by the community. That admonition rings true today.
Four years ago, I led an effort to ban stock trading by Members of Congress, joined with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. For 4 years, we have tried to convince this Chamber to ban Members of Congress from trading stocks. Why? Members of Congress should be serving their communities, their constituents, and their country, not their stock portfolios.
In that 4-year span, 48 months, 1,400 days, how many millions of dollars have Members of Congress in this body made from trading stocks? It is unconscionable. It is a practice that should have ended years ago. We have continued to beat that drum month after month, week after week, day after day, and we will keep doing it until a majority in this body joins the rest of the American people, the public in supporting a ban to this insidious practice. I am grateful to Representative Magaziner for continuing to beat that drum, leading the effort now over the last 2 years.
It feels as though we are on the precipice, as Mr. Magaziner noted, of finally getting traction in this Chamber to end this practice. The one cautionary note I would offer, Mr. Speaker, is that in that 4-year span, as I mentioned, this journey, this battle that we have waged, again, colleagues of mine on both sides of the aisle to ban stock trading, I have heard virtually every excuse in the book from some of my colleagues: It is too complicated; there are competing bills; the legislative text is complex.
This is very simple. Just ban it. Not 5 years from now, not next year. Let's just put a bill on the floor to ban it, period. Members of Congress will no longer be able to trade stocks, simple as that.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues will join me, join Mr. Magaziner, join the coalition that has organized around this issue so that we can finally get this done and end corruption here in Washington.
Mr. Speaker, as we get ready to close here tonight, I thank my colleagues once again for their leadership on this issue and their courage because, as was said earlier, the opponents of this stock trading ban don't speak out publicly, but they are here, and they are watching and listening, and they are probably not very happy with us tonight.
It takes people of courage to be willing to stand up and say: We here in Congress have to change. We have to change the way Congress works so that we work for the American people and not for ourselves. We need to end this corruption. We need to end this insider dealing. We need to end congressional stock trading.
What you have seen tonight is that this is a bipartisan issue. We have had people speak tonight from across the political spectrum who had the courage to stand up for what is right and to stand up for what the American people not only want but are demanding of us.
Make no mistake, this insider trading is happening. It is happening. I have the statistics right here. In 2024, the average Member of Congress outperformed the market by nearly 3 percent. Now, I used to work in the investment business, and let me tell you, there are paid professionals who do not have that kind of outperformance.
The year before that, the average Member of Congress also outperformed the market, and the year before that, and the year before that. The last 4 years in a row, Members of Congress who traded stocks outperformed the market.
That is not a coincidence. One time, one year might be luck, but two, three, four years in a row is a clear pattern of corruption that needs to end. Members should not be allowed to trade off of inside information and should not be conflicted when deciding how to vote on a bill or whether to support a policy.
The American people support this overwhelmingly, and it is time to get it done. I am feeling hopeful. Earlier this year, it was hard to get people to pay attention to this issue. It was hard to get media coverage. It was hard to get Member support, but in the last month or so, things have started to change. Leader Jeffries supports it; Speaker Johnson supports it; President Trump supports it. People are starting to notice. We are building momentum.
I will end tonight with gratitude for those who started this journey before I ever got to Congress. Former Members, like Abigail Spanberger and Ken Buck, have pushed for this for years. We are now building off of their work. I have the TRUST in Congress Act that I have been leading with Mr. Roy. We have got a few other Members who have introduced their own versions. Those of us who have various versions of a stock trading bill are now working together to develop a consensus bill that we can all get behind and push together, and we are getting close.
The excuses for inaction are running out fast. The excuses for inaction are running out. The American people want this. It is the right thing to do. Let's get it done.
Once again, I thank my colleagues from both sides who have had the courage to stand up tonight in support of a stock trading ban. The time is now. Let's get it done.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this week, we passed a major milestone when a majority of the entire House of Representatives signed on as cosponsors of H. Res. 166, supporting a democratic, secular, and nonnuclear Republic of Iran.
This truly bipartisan and broad-based House majority of 224, consisting of 139 Republicans and 85 Democrats, endorses the general principles propounded by Iranian democracy groups, most notably the 10- point plan proposed by the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
It calls for the universal right to vote; free elections; a market economy; separation of religion and state; gender, religious, and ethnic equality; foreign policy based on peaceful coexistence; peace in the Middle East; and a nonnuclear Republic of Iran. It also condemns the Iranian regime's terrorism, regional proxy war, and internal oppression.
Over 4,000 parliamentarians worldwide, the majority of 33 national legislative assemblies, over 130 world leaders, and 80 Nobel laureates have endorsed these principles. I am gratified that a majority of the entire House has stepped forward to support this resolution.
There are several Iranian groups fighting the Iranian dictatorship, and it will ultimately be up to the people of Iran to chart their own future, as the 10-point plan proposes.
One cause should unite us all, and that is the collapse of the current regime. To this end, we have organized the Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus within the House of Representatives. This is a truly bipartisan caucus. Like the various liberation groups of Iran, we Republicans and Democrats differ and quarrel about many things, but we are solidly united in the support of the people of Iran and their struggle for their own liberation from the tyranny of the mullahs.
The Iranian regime has made clear that it intends to acquire nuclear weapons and, once acquired, to use them. President Trump has made clear that this cannot be allowed to happen. I, for one, appreciate the efforts of this
There is only one solution that promises to resolve this danger without the risk of a terrible war that could claim many thousands of innocent lives, and that is the collapse of the regime from within. Opposition to the oppression of the mullahs has been simmering in Iran for many years. It is time to provide material support to help these groups liberate their country.
Past administrations sent cargo pallets of cash on cargo planes to these bloodthirsty mullahs in hopes of currying their favor and cooperation. However good the intentions, the result was to help fund the oppression of the Iranian people and the export of terrorism throughout the world.
I believe the time has now come to provide the same assistance, not to the oppressors of Iran, but to the people of Iran and the resistance groups actively seeking their overthrow.
The overthrow of this regime from within would be the cheapest, surest, and most peaceful way to remove it as a threat to the freedom of the Iranian people, the stability of the region, and the peace of the world. That is what the Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus was organized to promote and what H. Res. 166 pledges to accomplish.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) for asking me here to talk about this important subject.
Mr. Speaker, I came to speak because the cause of Iran is not just a cause that we should care about for the Iranian people, though we should. As Americans, we are a people whose country was founded because a group of people were unhappy by the tyranny we faced. There is no question they face it over there, as well.
The cause of Iran is one that we should care about because it is in the best interest of the United States to care about it. We live in a world that, unfortunately, is on fire, whether it is in China, whether we see it in Russia, or certainly in Iran.
Iran has chosen to not only take their horrific, genocidal, lunatic policies to kill their own people, to hurt women, and to hurt people who won't abide by their radical Islamic faiths, but they have done it to other people around the world. They are the leading sponsor of terrorism around the world.
We saw this most dramatically just a little over 18 months ago when, on October 7, 2023, 1,200 people, most of which were Jews, but not all, people from dozens of countries, including Americans, were attacked and killed.
We focus on Hamas, but Hamas only exists because Iran funds and supports it. Just as we saw President Trump free the last American citizen who was being held hostage because of Iran, those problems and challenges continue to happen today.
I did a little research. Obviously, I have an affinity for Jewish problems around the world because I am Jewish. I have always been part of a small minority throughout my life. I am one here in Congress, as well, and it is a great honor to be here.
In 1979, 100,000 Jews lived in Iran. The same people who Iran likes to fund to talk about genocide, suffering, and rooting out people and all these problems around the world, Mr. Speaker, you can say: How many of those folks still live in Iran today?
Today, estimates are that 10,000 Jews live in Iran. I am not saying that 90,000 of them have been killed. Certainly, some of them have. Mr. Speaker, 90,000 have left. That is 90 percent of this population, of just one population. There are many populations of people who would be at risk in a place like Iran, but 90 percent have left and fled. Many, by the way, have come to the United States.
They do that because they are not free to live their lives the way they want to live them. Today, when we talk about this, we stand with Iran not only because we believe in freedom for all people around the world but freedom of self-determination and to decide what kind of government we want.
Frankly, we want to allow women to vote, to have equal rights with men, to live in a society where religion is important but is not a tool for oppression.
We care about these issues because they create peace and security in the Middle East. Ultimately, that leads to peace and security here in the United States.
It is my honor to speak here today to support the gentleman and his resolution. We must do everything we can to get these lunatics out of power and allow the great Persian people, where many say civilization began thousands and thousands of years ago, to reseize that initiative that they had at the founding of civilization and to rebuild the kind of society they once had and certainly could have again.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fine has been here only about 6 weeks. As you can see, he is already distinguishing himself as a vital voice for freedom abroad and for liberty at home. I couldn't be more pleased to have him here today to speak on behalf of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, Iran is one of the oldest and greatest civilizations in history. It was one of the most free, advanced, prosperous, and open countries in the Middle East just a few decades ago. Then, came the revolution of 1979, when the progress abruptly ended with the takeover by the theocratic despots who introduced a reign of terror that has gone on now for decades.
Twice before, Iranians were on the verge of overthrowing this regime. In 2009, as Iranians took to the streets during the so-called Green Movement, they looked to the United States for support but got only silence. In 2016, the American Government sent $1.7 billion in cash to the mullahs on shrink-wrapped cargo pallets. In 2015, we released $150 billion more in frozen assets, all to get a nuclear agreement that Iran never honored.
Today, America must stand with the people of Iran. The regime in Tehran has been crystal clear about its intent to develop nuclear weapons and, once developed, to use them.
There are only two ways this is going to end. It will end either with thousands, perhaps millions, dead in a terrible war or with a successful revolution and the long-overdue collapse of this regime.
The President is speaking out forcefully, and he is acting decisively. So must Congress.
H. Res. 166 has 224 cosponsors, representing both political parties. It expresses support for the Iranian resistance and its vision of a free, secular, and nonnuclear Iran. I urge the leadership to bring it to the floor for a vote.
Our Declaration of Independence proclaims that whenever a government becomes destructive of the natural rights of its people, it becomes their right to alter or abolish it. This critical hour has come for the people of Iran.
I believe it is time for the United States to step forward with material support for the freedom movement. For every dollar this government has given over the years to this brutal dictatorship, we owe many times over to the Iranians who are desperately trying to overthrow their oppressors and restore the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.
They need the direct satellite access to the internet that the regime has denied them on the ground. They need us to restore economic sanctions, as the President is doing against the regime in a renewed boycott of Iran.
Mr. Speaker, decisive turning points in history do not come often. When history commands, we must answer. That answer will follow us far into the future.
This time and in this hour, let the United States take a stand with the people of Iran and, by so doing, fulfill those proud words in our Liberty Bell, to proclaim liberty in all the land and to all the inhabitants thereof.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 25 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, May 15, 2025, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.
