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.
11Deletions of Sponsors From Public Bills and Resolutions
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
55 public bills, H.R. 3420- 3474; and 12 resolutions, H.J. Res. 96-97; and H. Res. 414-423 were introduced.
Pages H2101-04
Report Filed
A report was filed today as follows: H.R. 1364, to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide clarification regarding the inclusion of medically necessary automobile adaptations in Department of Veterans Affairs definition of ``medical services'', with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-96).
Page H2101
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Green to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H2055
Recess
The House recessed at 11:16 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H2064
Guest Chaplain
The prayer was offered by the Guest Chaplain, Dr. John Cross, First Sarasota Baptist Church, Sarasota, FL.
Page H2064
Recess
The House recessed at 1:56 p.m. and reconvened at 4 p.m.
Page H2077
Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025
The House passed H.R. 2255, to allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service weapons, by a yea-and-nay vote of 234 yeas to 182 nays, Roll No. 130.
Pages H2067-71, H2077-78
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.
Page H2067
H. Res. 405, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 2240), (H.R. 2243), and (H.R. 2255) was agreed to yesterday, May 14th. Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act: The House passed H.R. 2240, to require the Attorney General to develop reports relating to violent attacks against law enforcement officers, by a yea-and-nay vote of 403 yeas to 11 nays, Roll No. 131.
Pages H2071-77, H2078-79
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. H. Res. 405, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 2240), (H.R. 2243), and (H.R. 2255) was agreed to yesterday, May 14th.
Pages H2071-72
Work Period Designation
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he designated the period from Thursday, May 15, 2025, through Sunday, May 18, 2025, as a ``district work period'' under clause 13 of rule 1.
Page H2079
Senate Referrals
S. 195 was held at the desk. S. 260 was held at the desk. S. 1596 was held at the desk.
Page H2071
Senate Message
Message received from the Senate appears on page H2071. Quorum Calls Votes: Two yea-and-nay votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H2077-78 and H2078-79. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 7:44 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: 146 of 201 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, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a truly remarkable Buffalonian, John Feroleto. John passed away unexpectedly on April 6 at the age of 71.
John Feroleto was more than a distinguished trial lawyer, he was a devoted family man, a pillar of our community, and a shining example of the American Dream.
Growing up on Buffalo's West Side as the son of a construction worker and a beautician, John became the first in his family to attend college, working his way through school by starting his own house painting business at just 16 years old. His determination led him to the University at Buffalo School of Law, where he met his wife of nearly 45 years, Paula, who is now a highly respected State Supreme Court judge.
Together, they built not just a loving family but a legacy that has profoundly shaped all of western New York. For more than 35 years, John dedicated his career to fighting for his clients and standing up for those who couldn't stand up for themselves.
He established Feroleto Law, which grew into a family enterprise with his children John, Joel, and Kate all following in his footsteps as attorneys.
His son John was recently appointed to the Buffalo city court, while Joel represents the Delaware District on the Buffalo Common Council, and Kate is a renowned attorney at the family practice, Feroleto Law.
In the courtroom, John took on the most challenging cases not for personal gain but because it was the right thing to do, but his contributions extended well beyond the courtroom. He was instrumental in founding the New York State Trial Lawyers Association Western New York Chapter, serving as its second president.
He established a paid internship program with his wife to provide high school students from all backgrounds with legal experience, and he was a generous supporter of numerous community causes from collecting winter gloves for the needy to sponsoring fundraisers for organ transplant recipients and Down syndrome organizations.
While he achieved great professional success, John never forgot his roots or the importance of family. John was deeply proud of his Italian heritage and kept traditions that had been passed down through generations of family alive, including making homemade wine.
John found joy in life's simple pleasures, tending to his vegetable garden, running marathons, and spending summers with his beloved grandchildren at their family cottage in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Western New York has lost an extraordinary advocate, mentor, and friend. John Feroleto's legacy lives on not just through his legal achievements but through the countless lives he has touched with his generosity, his compassion, and his unwavering commitment to justice.
I extend my deepest condolences to Paula; their children, John P., Joel, and Kate; and their six grandchildren. Western New York stands with them in remembering a life well-lived and a legacy that will inspire generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, may John Feroleto's memory be a blessing, and may his example of service and devotion to family continue to guide us all. May he rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Marc J. Meyers, a beloved husband, father, and grandfather, and a public servant who was taken from us too soon.
Born to the late Kenneth and Joan Meyers and raised alongside his siblings, Lisa, Tim, and the late Guy Meyers, Marc was the heart of his family and a steady presence in our community.
A longtime employee of the town of Cheektowaga and brother to Erie County Legislative Chairman Tim Meyers, he worked to make life better for his neighbors.
He found joy in the simple things: family vacations to Rhode Island, fishing, golf, Bills games, and quiet afternoons with his dog, Lambchop.
Marc's kindness, humility, and dedication defined him, and his legacy will live on in all that knew him.
I send my prayers and deepest condolences to his wife, Pam; their children, Colin and Taylor; their six grandchildren; his surviving siblings; extended family; and all who loved him. Western New York has lost one of our finest. May Marc Meyers rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the Representative of the nearly one in four Delawareans who rely on Medicaid: families, children, seniors, and people with disabilities whose lives now hang in the balance.
Republicans in Congress have proposed not only the largest cut in Medicaid in American history but the single largest evisceration of healthcare in American history, period.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, this slash- and-burn proposal would strip health insurance from nearly 14 million people. That is not belt-tightening; it is life threatening.
Since the majority in Congress began advancing this plan, I have heard from hundreds of Delawareans who can't sleep, gripped by the fear of losing the care that keeps them or their kids alive.
Caroline, a young woman from Newark, has a rare condition that requires extensive medical intervention. Without Medicaid, she told me that she could die. Caroline tragically is not alone. If these cuts advance, people will die.
I have heard from doctors, nurses, hospital leaders, and community health clinics across our State. They all agree: Republican cuts to Medicaid will do irreparable harm, eliminating a lifeline for their patients, and putting further strain on our hospital systems that are already facing a workforce crisis.
Let's talk about what is actually in the Republican proposal. The majority party wants to impose needless and excessive paperwork requirements that serve no purpose but to push people off the rolls. They are importing the worst parts of the private health insurance industry, needless bureaucratic barriers and excessive paperwork into a lifesaving program to make it harder to qualify for care, all to pad the pockets of the ultrawealthy.
If that weren't enough, the bill also includes what can only be described as a backdoor abortion ban, prohibiting Medicaid funding from going to family planning clinics that provide abortion services, even if that funding isn't being used for abortion care.
This means shuttering access to trusted providers and family planning clinics, especially in rural areas where options are already scarce. They are doing all of this while forcing working families to pay more out of pocket. When you make working people pay more for basic healthcare, that is a tax.
Republicans in Congress want to tax the healthcare of working people all to just partially pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. This administration and Republicans promised Americans three things last year: lower costs, cutting red tape, and bringing down the deficit.
Let's review what their budget will actually do: It raises costs for working families across the country through new out-of-pocket expenses, higher premiums, and loss in coverage. It creates new bureaucratic red tape for patients, providers, and State governments, barriers designed to trip people up and push them out. It adds $3.7 trillion to the deficit, not to expand care or invest in working people, but to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
I didn't come to Congress to rubberstamp cruelty. I came to fight for the people I represent: the aging parents in Sussex County, the caregivers in Kent, and kids in Wilmington.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to end with the words of another Delawarean, a single mom: ``Without Medicaid, neither of us would have health insurance. My employer doesn't offer health coverage, and I can't afford the $500 a month private plan with high deductibles and out-of- pocket expenses. If we lose Medicaid, we lose everything.''
She added this: ``P.S., I am a healthcare worker with a bachelor's degree. This isn't about being too lazy to work.''
We owe her and millions of others better than this. I urge my colleagues to reject this cruel and catastrophic proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize three extraordinary individuals from Guam who were honored today at the 2025 Guam Centenarian celebration: Ms. Victorina Dulay Robeniol, Mr. Frank Manangan, and Ms. Cerafina Fejeran.
Each of these individuals has reached or surpassed 100 years of age. This is a remarkable milestone on its own; but more than longevity, they represent a generation whose lives were shaped by some of the most defining moments in our island's history, including World War II.
As we approach Guam's 81st Liberation Day this July, we are reminded of the resilience, determination, and strength of those who endured the occupation of Guam during World War II and witnessed the delivery of freedom to our people in 1944. The centenarians lived through those difficult years and helped rebuild our island in the decades that followed.
Their lives are a testament to the enduring spirit of the people of Guam.
I extend my warmest congratulations and deepest respect from this Chamber. On behalf of the people of Guam and the United States Congress, I thank Ms. Robeniol, Mr. Manangan, and Ms. Fejeran for their strength, their wisdom, and the example they continue to set for us all.
Mr. Speaker, Oregonians at home and colleagues in the House often hear me talk about NOAA, but I want to use this time to explain how this agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, contributes to the economy and to our well-being.
NOAA is not just a four-letter acronym or a Federal building in Maryland, it is the backbone of this Nation's environmental safety and resilience, which support better health and a thriving economy. When the Earth shakes the coastline of my district in the Pacific Northwest, as it inevitably will, it will put the lives and safety of thousands of coastal residents at risk from a devastating tsunami. The first lifesaving alert they will hear is because of NOAA.
As a seismologist at the Alaska Earthquake Center said: NOAA creates the information needed by emergency managers, mariners, and everyday citizens: Where is the safe zone in my town? How long will I have? Where should boats go? How do I stay informed?
When someone fishing in Astoria, Oregon, sets her catch limits for Dungeness crab or pink shrimp and when she checks the marine weather forecast to decide whether to put her crew out on the water or to keep them safe at shore, that is because of the workers at NOAA.
At a recent Oregon fisheries roundtable, one fisherman made the stakes clear: NOAA's forecasts of sea state and weather save lives.
Last year, blooms of toxic algae shut down beaches, contaminated shellfish, and put about 40 Oregonians in the hospital with a paralytic shellfish poisoning. States, hospitals, and families deserve accurate information about what they are exposed to and what they consume. This should not be a luxury. This is a public service and expectation that we should be able to rely on, and we have it because of the hardworking staff at NOAA.
Planes avoid turbulence. School districts decide whether it is safe to have class during a snowstorm. People seek shelter during a tornado or a hurricane. Weather forecasts are available at our fingertips, and behind every alert, every early warning, every saved life are the people at NOAA.
I have spoken with shrimpers in Newport, Oregon, and scientists at Oregon State University, Tribal leaders along the Columbia River, and teachers in Hillsboro. They have all highlighted how NOAA's work is far-reaching, and this is just in one of 435 congressional districts.
Students in Oregon recently told me that the Sea Grant program, run by NOAA, helped spark their love for marine biology and education. Another student said Sea Grant inspired their interest in ocean technology and set them on the path to study engineering. These students understand how NOAA's science programs can protect their communities and change lives, so it is hard to understand why so many of my colleagues and this administration are throwing NOAA overboard and then hoping a storm won't come.
NOAA has been threatened, and its budget is being slashed by this administration. In past Congresses, we have come together to sustain this funding because its bipartisan work is valued across red, blue, and purple districts and States. We have successfully fought back against attempts to muzzle its experts, and we will continue to fight back and win.
Let me be clear: Defunding NOAA will hurt Oregonians, Americans, and people across this country. It puts the lives of fishers and their crews at risk. It leaves towns without early warning. It undermines economies built on tourism, shipping, and fisheries.
Slashing the budget of NOAA doesn't save money. A 2019 analysis shows NOAA provides $11 in economic benefit for every dollar we invest. That is not charity, it is infrastructure. NOAA's ocean observation system, for example, drives economies and saves lives.
Captain Dan Jordan, a Columbia River bar pilot, sees this every day. He said: ``Ships crossing the Columbia River bar face one of the most dangerous harbor entrances in the world. . . . bar pilots rely on weather forecasts, real-time buoy data along with wave and current models . . .'' to safely cross the bar.
I agree with Captain Jordan. Just as we need roads, rails, and broadband, we need buoys, satellites, and tide gauges so our ships can safely transport goods in and out of our ports. This is navigation, weather, safety, commerce, and, yes, climate science.
Proposals to gut NOAA's funding by more than 25 percent, to decimate the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research would, as the former director of that office said, take our scientific footing back to the 1950s. Their mission is to develop the best possible science to save lives and property in a changing climate. To cut it is not fiscally conservative, it is strategically catastrophic.
When did we become so afraid of knowledge? When did we decide that protecting political egos was more important than protecting people's lives? NOAA scientists are not enemies of the State. They are guardians of it.
To the next generation, I know many of you feel disillusioned. You see the ocean becoming more acidic. You see storms getting stronger. You wonder if anyone in power is listening. Let this moment be a promise. I hear you, and the workers of NOAA hear you, as well.
Let's reject the cynical policies of willful ignorance. Let's not stand in opposition to science but in service to it because when the sky darkens, the tide rises, and the wind begins to howl, it is the workers of NOAA who will tell us what comes next.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday California Governor Gavin Newsom finally backed down from his irresponsible, reckless policy of providing full-scope Medicaid, Medi-Cal coverage to every person who is income eligible in our State illegally. Of course, the Governor did not do the right thing on his own but only in response to the pressure that we have brought to bear.
It has been painfully obvious that this policy, which no other State in the country has, was utterly unsustainable and was threatening the solvency of Medicaid in California itself. The cost has ballooned for this year to $10 billion, over three times what was initially estimated. The Governor has had to take out an emergency loan and then separately go to the legislature in the middle of the year for a bailout.
The Governor has finally acknowledged this, that the policy should never have been enacted, and he has said he is going to freeze any new enrollment by adults who are in our country illegally.
However, the Governor is only partially reversing his policy. Indeed, by the time this freeze goes into effect, we will have already spent $23 billion that could have gone toward improving access to care for legal California residents.
The partial repeal is not a solution. For one thing, it will continue to cost us enormous sums in State tax dollars. For another, it could lead to the loss of billions and billions of dollars every year in Federal funding.
As I called on the Governor before to repeal this policy, as I have introduced legislation requiring him to do so, I am now calling on Governor Newsom not to go halfway but to completely reverse this reckless, disastrous policy that no other State in the country has.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Governor Newsom introduced his budget proposal in Sacramento and has decided to double
Even under the most wildly optimistic scenarios, we are going to have a line from Palmdale to Gilroy in 20 years that will require 2 hours of additional travel on each end to get from San Francisco to L.A. In 20 years, riders will be able to get from San Francisco to L.A. in 6 hours, something you can do on a plane in 1 hour today.
This project has been called a project that won't even be built within the next century by even sources like The New York Times. I have introduced legislation to eliminate all future Federal funding for high-speed rail. The Governor continues to believe that Federal funding will come. It is not going to come. There is currently an investigation by the Department of Transportation as well, and I have asked for an investigation by FBI Director Kash Patel to look into exactly where all of this money went.
It is time to end this irresponsible failure of a project--the biggest public infrastructure failure in U.S. history--once and for all and put our transportation dollars where they are needed: toward improving our roads, repairing potholes, alleviating traffic, on things that will actually benefit the quality of life for Californians.
Mr. Speaker, Peter Beinart said: ``When you tell a people to forget its past, you are not proposing peace, you are proposing extinction.''
I introduced a resolution yesterday recognizing the 77 years of the ongoing Nakba against the Palestinian people and the need for refugee rights. We know that thousands of Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948, and nearly 800,000 were violently removed from over 400 villages, completely erased. Many of them carry their keys to this day, Mr. Speaker, hanging them on the wall of their new, temporary homes in hopes that one day they will be able to return to their villages.
We acknowledge their trauma and the painful loss of their connections to their family members, land, the beautiful olive groves, and the 400 Palestinian villages that they all grew up in. We, of course, see that the Israeli Government continues to illegally steal Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank where my family lives. They illegally evict Palestinian families, Mr. Speaker, demolish homes, and deny Palestinians basic human rights.
We honor those all around the world and want them to know that former Congresswoman Cori Bush and I see them. We know the suffering. We know that there are lasting harms of settler colonialism, as well as ethnic cleansing and apartheid.
There are days that I feel so alone in this Chamber as the only Palestinian American serving in Congress. The dehumanization and the anti-Palestinian racism here is painful, especially when my colleagues remain silent on the starvation of children and vote to send more bombs to the Israeli Government while they commit war crimes with impunity.
Today, we are witnessing a genocide in Gaza. Many human rights organizations, advocacy groups, NGOs, and folks on medical missions have confirmed, the campaign to erase Palestinians from existence is happening right now, live-streamed for all of us to see while the world sits and does nothing.
Palestinians were right. The Nakba never ended. Across Gaza, the medical system has been deliberately destroyed. The Israeli Government is using starvation as a weapon of war, which is a war crime. The thousands of trucks carrying food and lifesaving aid sit blocked at the border while Palestinian families starve.
Instead of agreeing to a cease-fire, war criminal Netanyahu is now preparing a full-scale assault to ethnically cleanse and forcibly expel the entire Palestinian population from Gaza and to flatten and permanently occupy the land. This was always their plan. He said it himself.
Israeli forces have killed more than 52,000 Palestinians, and nearly 70 percent of them were women and children, babies who did not live to see their first birthday. There are thousands more who were dismembered, unrecognizable, burned alive, buried beneath the rubble, and presumed dead.
Mr. Speaker, nearly 1.9 million Palestinians have been displaced once again. Each year, our country sends billions of dollars to maintain this apartheid state and support the ongoing cleansing of the Palestinian people. Our country is complicit, Mr. Speaker, because our Nation is funding this genocide.
The Israeli Government will not stop until we put in place an arms embargo. The majority of Americans support it. We must save lives. No matter faith or ethnicity, a child is a child.
Mr. Speaker, my ``grandma's''; ``sity's'' only crime in the eyes of the Israeli apartheid government was that she was born Palestinian. It killed me inside that she took her last breath without being truly free. I pray that the ongoing Nakba against the Palestinians will end and one day they will be free.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about something that is happening right here in our backyard in regard to the Congressional Mamas Caucus.
As a mother, I am dismayed. We started Mamas for Medicaid, which is mothers across the Nation sharing their stories about what it means to cut Medicaid and how cruel it will be for their families, especially those with children with special needs.
What makes me even more angry is this so-called sneaking in of the nonprofit killer bill into the budget reconciliation package. We have to worry about that now.
This is dangerous and unconstitutional legislation that would give the Trump administration unchecked power to target any nonprofit organization as a political enemy and shut them down--no evidence, no charge, no trial, no due process.
This legislation is part of a broader assault on civil liberties, aiming to criminalize free speech, Mr. Speaker.
Trust me, it won't just be Palestinian human rights organizations. It will be those who are fighting against the Medicaid cuts. It will be those who are fighting for Black lives and those who are fighting for climate justice. It is wrong, and I hope my colleagues will vote against it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and ultimate sacrifice of Deputy Bruce Evans of the Jackson County Sheriff's Department, who was tragically killed in the line of duty on July 18, 2000.
Deputy Evans lost his life while protecting his community. In his final moments, he stood in harm's way so that others could be safe. That is the kind of man he was. He was a courageous man, selfless and committed to the oath that he took.
Bruce served 7 years in law enforcement, 4 of those with the Jackson County Sheriff's Department. He was a husband, a father of two children, and a hero to all who knew him.
This loss is especially personal to my office. My chief of staff was Bruce's partner at the sheriff's department at that time. I have heard firsthand how deeply Bruce cared for his work, his family, and his community.
Mr. Speaker, we honor his memory today, and we pray for his family and his loved ones. We recommit ourselves to standing behind the brave men and women who wear the badge every day.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Barbara Marquez, who was named the Alzheimer's Impact Movement Advocate of the Month.
Barbara's connection to Alzheimer's is deeply personal. She lost her maternal grandmother and five of her mother's siblings to this devastating disease. When her mother, Florence,
After a frightening incident when her mother went missing, Barbara made the decision to move Florence into her home, eventually retiring early to care for her full time.
Like so many caregivers, Barbara faced emotional and financial strain. Even with insurance, the cost of care added up for adult day programs, nutritional support, and memory care.
Rather than step back, Barbara stepped up. She became an active advocate with the Alzheimer's Impact Movement, lending her voice and experience to support families across our community.
Barbara has been instrumental in helping my office organize our annual Brain Health Forum with the Alzheimer's Association, bringing together caregivers, experts, and advocates to share resources and expand awareness around brain health and dementia care.
Barbara's story is one of love, resilience, and service. I am proud to honor her today and thank her for everything she has done and continues to do for families impacted by Alzheimer's in Sacramento County and beyond.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor 175 years of Sacramento County, a truly special milestone.
Established in 1850 as one of California's original 27 counties, Sacramento has always been at the heart of our State's story. Just a few years later, in 1854, Sacramento became the permanent capital of California. We have served as the political, cultural, and economic engine of our State ever since.
From the Gold Rush to the completion of the transcontinental railroad, Sacramento County has helped connect our Nation from coast to coast and fueled California's early growth.
Our story didn't stop there. Generations of families, immigrants, farmers, teachers, veterans, and small business owners have worked together to build a more inclusive, resilient, and thriving community.
Today, Sacramento County is the leader in agriculture, clean energy, and technology and remains one of the most diverse places in the country. We are proudly known as the Farm-to-Fork Capital and home to the largest tree canopy in the United States, earning us the title of ``City of Trees.''
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to call Sacramento County home, and I am honored to represent our people in Congress. I congratulate Sacramento County on 175 years of leadership, service, and progress. Here is to the next 175 years.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Jesuit High School Marauders of Carmichael, California, for capturing their first-ever CIF State basketball championship and doing so in truly historic fashion.
At Sacramento's Golden 1 Center, Jesuit put on a master class in teamwork and execution, defeating L.A. County heavyweight Chatsworth 66-53.
In what the Sacramento Bee called one of the most remarkable championship efforts, the Marauders showed us all how the game should be played--with heart, with discipline, and with unity.
This was more than a win. It was a defining moment. Jesuit beat a program with national recognition. In doing so, they inspired a new generation of young athletes across Sacramento County to lead with character and strive for excellence.
I congratulate the players, coaches, and community. They have made history and have made our community proud.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 125th anniversary of the Mosaic Law Congregation, an important milestone for one of Sacramento County's most respected, enduring faith communities.
Founded in 1900 by just seven families, Mosaic Law has grown into a vibrant, multigenerational congregation, now serving more than 400 families across our region.
From its current home on H Street to its current 6-acre campus on Sierra Boulevard, the congregation has expanded not only in size but in its impact on our community.
Mosaic Law is more than a synagogue. It is home to Sacramento's only Jewish day school, the Shalom School, as well as the KOH Library and the Central Valley Holocaust Education Network. It is a place where families gather, where children learn, and where the value of service, education, and remembrance are passed down from generation to generation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the entire Mosaic Law community for the role it plays in shaping the civic and moral life of Sacramento County.
Mr. Speaker, this National Police Week, I thank the brave men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities and honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Their courage and service will never be forgotten.
I want to recognize two law enforcement officers from Wisconsin's Seventh District who recently retired after decades of service.
Barron County Sheriff Chris Fitzgerald, ``Fitzy,'' served for 28 years in law enforcement, including 17 years as sheriff. His leadership and commitment made a lasting impact on his community. I wish Sheriff Fitzgerald the best in the next chapter of his life.
Rusk County Sheriff Jeff Wallace retired earlier this year after 28 years in law enforcement, including 10 years as sheriff. We are grateful for Sheriff Wallace's service.
I also congratulate Jim Peglow. After 31 years with the Neenah- Menasha Fire Rescue and an additional 9 years with the Minocqua Fire and Rescue, Jim has answered his final call.
We thank all of our law enforcement officers, firefighters, and first responders. Our communities are safer because of them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the courage, dedication, and sacrifice of the law enforcement officers serving in Ohio's 13th Congressional District and to honor those who have lost their lives in the line of duty.
Being a police officer is not an easy job. It is one of the most difficult and most dangerous jobs in our society, and in recent years, it has only gotten harder.
As I have met with law enforcement agencies across northeast Ohio, I continue to hear the same concerns. Officers are overworked, stretched thin, and in need of better support and training to meet the demands of the job and the needs of our communities.
That is why I have reintroduced the Law Enforcement Scenario-Based Training for Safety and De-Escalation Act. This is bipartisan legislation that supports law enforcement officers by ensuring they have access to high-quality, real-world training that prepares them for the complex situations they face in the field.
This bill requires the Department of Justice through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, also known as the COPS Office, to develop and distribute scenario-based training curricula that cover de- escalation, crisis intervention, use of force, situational awareness, decisionmaking under stress, and community relationship building.
We know that when law enforcement has the tools and the training they need, it protects both the officers and the public. This bill creates a grant program to make these programs accessible to departments of all sizes, rural and urban, so that every officer in every community can benefit.
This legislation is especially urgent for my community. June 27 will mark 3 years since Jayland Walker was shot and killed by police in Akron. April 18
We cannot ignore these tragedies. We must respond to solutions that promote safety, accountability, and trust. That is exactly what this legislation is designed to do.
We want our citizens and our officers to make it home to their loved ones at the end of the night. That is what this legislation will do. We are already seeing what is possible when departments commit to this type of training.
I recognize the Canton Police Department for stepping up and participating in a 4-week de-escalation program following a recent high-profile incident involving use of force. Their involvement aligns directly with the goals of this legislation. By embracing immersive de- escalation training like the program offered by the Midwest De- Escalation Training Center, CPD has taken meaningful action to build trust with the community and improve safety outcomes for everyone in Canton.
This is exactly what we want to see. We want to see police departments proactively seeking solutions to better serve and protect. It shows that when officers are equipped with the right tools, training, and support, we can prevent tragedies, rebuild relationships, and ensure that both officers and the public go home safely.
The Law Enforcement Scenario-Based Training for Safety and De- Escalation Act is supported by the National Fraternal Order of Police, the FOP, and the Akron NAACP because we all share the same goal of making sure that everyone goes home safely at the end of the night.
When I came to Congress, I promised to put the people of Ohio's 13th Congressional District first. That means supporting our officers, rebuilding trust in public safety, and working across the aisle to get things done. That is exactly what this bill does, and I look forward to seeing my colleagues advance this bill over the finish line.
Again, as it is National Police Week, I thank all the law enforcement officers across Ohio's 13th District and the country for the service that they provide to protect and serve our communities.
Mr. Speaker, in honor of Police Week, I would like to remember two police officers who paid the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.
I rise today in solemn recognition of Deputy Cailee Campbell of the Oswego County Sheriff's Office.
Deputy Campbell began her career in law enforcement with the Onondaga County Sheriff's Office as a corrections officer before attending the Syracuse Police Academy. In April 2023, she joined the Oswego County Sheriff's Office as a patrol deputy.
Tragically, while en route to a call on the morning of September 25, 2024, Deputy Campbell's life was cut short when her patrol vehicle was T-boned in an intersection. Following the crash, she was transported to Oswego Hospital where she was tragically pronounced deceased. She was just 33 years old.
Deputy Campbell leaves behind a loving father, brother, and extended family, as well as her boyfriend, a close-knit group of friends, colleagues, and two beloved cats.
She will be remembered for her love of hiking, personal fitness, traveling to new places and having new experiences, and spending time at the range. Her memory lives on through all those who knew her and whose lives she impacted.
On behalf of the people of New York's 24th Congressional District, it is my honor to share a little bit about Deputy Campbell's life and legacy, and express my appreciation, and the appreciation of my constituents, for her service to her community, and condolences to all who loved and cared for Deputy Campbell.
Honoring Sergeant Thomas A. Sanfratello During National Police Week
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solemn recognition of Sergeant Thomas A. Sanfratello of the Genesee County Sheriff's Office.
Sergeant Sanfratello faithfully served his beloved community as a police officer for 32 years, was twice recognized as Officer of the Year, and was heavily involved with the New York State Sheriffs' Association, Stop-DWI program, and Shop With a Cop programs. He was also a town board member and former volunteer firefighter.
Tragically, in the early morning hours of March 10, 2024, Sergeant Sanfratello was killed after being attacked while responding to a call.
Sergeant Sanfratello truly embodied what it means to be a public servant, having made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of protecting others. He leaves behind a close-knit family, including a wife and three children, as well as countless friends and colleagues.
Sergeant Sanfratello will be remembered for his love of family and spending quality time with his children, his passion for his community, as well as his love of sports, Motorama, and his collection of LEGOs and Hot Wheels. His memory lives on through all those who knew him and whose lives have been changed for the better because of his sacrifice and his service.
On behalf of the people of New York's 24th Congressional District, it is my honor to have shared a little bit about Sergeant Sanfratello's life and his legacy and express my deep appreciation and the appreciation of my constituents for his services to his community. I send my condolences to his friends and family.
Mr. Speaker, today we are seeing a full scale assault on the arts, culture, and public knowledge in America by Trump and Republicans in this Congress.
The administration has made it clear: They are not just trying to defund NPR, PBS, or make changes to the Library of Congress, they are trying to dismantle every institution that informs, educates, and inspires the American people.
From Sesame Street to the Smithsonian, from symphony halls to small- town libraries, Republicans are waging a culture war on anything they cannot control.
Their goal is simple: Erase facts, silence independent voices, replace them with partisan noise, and use them as propaganda machines to spread disinformation and continue to divide our Nation.
The latest example is President Trump's removal of Dr. Carla Hayden as Librarian of Congress, a respected public servant with decades of experience, and his illegal installation of personal attorney, Todd Blanche, in her place. He is not a librarian or a scholar but only a Trump loyalist.
It doesn't stop there. Republicans have repeatedly pushed to zero out funding for NPR, a lifeline for rural news and local journalism. They have attacked PBS, which brings educational programming to children who don't have access to cable or broadband.
For decades, American children have learned from Big Bird and Elmo. These aren't just TV characters. They have become part of the joys of growing up in this country, and Republicans want to deny our kids the joy and the opportunity to learn for generations in the future.
These cornerstones of our civic life belong to the public. Arts and culture should not be partisan. They are how we tell our stories. They are how we learn. They are how we connect across communities, across cultures, and across language. They are worth defending.
Congress must protect these institutions. We must safeguard NPR, PBS, and the Library of Congress from being turned into propaganda tools. We must make clear that knowledge, truth, and creativity are not the enemies of democracy, but instead, they are its very foundation.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans in this House are proposing a budget that includes devastating cuts to Medicaid.
This isn't about balancing a budget, responsibly cutting spending, or making government more efficient. This is about trying to balance the books on the backs of working families, children, seniors, and people with disabilities.
In Texas, these healthcare cuts will be catastrophic. We already have the highest uninsured rate in the country, with nearly 5 million people in Texas lacking health coverage. Mr. Speaker, one in four Texas children rely on Medicaid or CHIP, and more than one-half of Texas births are covered by Medicaid.
These cuts would gut funding for rural hospitals, eliminate access to care for thousands of Texans with disabilities, and put even more pressure on emergency rooms that are already stretched very thin, causing hospitals to close and making it even harder to find care.
It is cruel. It is reckless. It is part of a broader agenda that prioritizes tax breaks for Trump and his friends over healthcare for the people who need it the very most.
Instead of expanding Medicaid like we should have done over a decade ago, Republicans are trying to dismantle this basic-needs program altogether.
I won't stand by while they try to take healthcare away from Texans who need it most. I will fight tooth and nail to protect Medicaid, to protect our hospitals, and to make sure no Texan is left behind simply because they are sick, struggling, or don't make enough money to exceed the meager income limits for Medicaid.
Republicans should be working with us to build a stronger, more equitable health system instead of destroying the one lifeline millions of Texans rely on.
Mr. Speaker, Medicaid is the foundation of our healthcare system. It is good for business. It is good for our economy, and it is good for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join Democrats in defense of this vital program.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House Agriculture Committee marked up our portion of the one big, beautiful bill to deliver on the mandate the country gave us on November 5, 2024. In total, we saved American taxpayers more than $295 billion and made long overdue investments to support the farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers of the Big First and all of rural America. I am very proud of all that we were able to accomplish.
However, Mr. Speaker, I have been gravely disappointed in how some of my Democrat colleagues have continued to blatantly lie about our legislation throughout this process. Rather than work together to get our fiscal house back in order and ensure programs like Medicaid and SNAP are on a sustainable path, they have chosen to misrepresent and oppose everything we are working toward.
As the fifth generation to grow up and work on my family farm, I understand the weight and pride our Nation's farmers have in feeding, clothing, and fueling the world. Not a single Member in this body wants to see people go hungry, and I am personally offended by these lies.
We want families to be able to put food on their tables. The difference is, Mr. Speaker, we want these programs to actually serve the most vulnerable communities for generations to come: the single mom taking care of kids too young to be in school, the disabled, and the elderly, not the person who wants the government to foot their bill while they sit at home.
Why would we willingly jeopardize the benefits of vulnerable Americans for someone who is perfectly capable of making an honest income but isn't willing to join the workforce?
These programs were meant to be a bridge to a better life. They were intended to help Americans who fell on hard times and needed a helping hand, but today my Democrat colleagues are defending them as a final destination. That is not right, Mr. Speaker, and it is anti-American.
Even former President Biden once said: The culture of welfare must be replaced with the culture of work. The culture of dependence must be replaced with the culture of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. The culture of permanence must no longer be a way of life.
This used to be a bipartisan agreement we could all rally around.
I sincerely ask my Democrat colleagues: What has changed?
We live in the greatest country in the world, where anyone from anywhere can come here legally, make an honest living, and pursue the American Dream. That is what House Republicans are fighting for.
It is unfortunate that the other side would rather see programs that were meant to help the neediest Americans continue to be riddled with fraud and abuse, intentionally mismanaged, and undermined all for the sake of scoring political points.
House Republicans are committed to ensuring our programs help the most vulnerable Americans, slashing wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive spending, and preventing American families from seeing a $2,200 tax increase next January. That is what this is all about, and that is what 77 million Americans endorsed last November.
I am disappointed that not a single Democrat has been willing to work with us, but I feel confident that this majority, along with the Senate and President Trump, will deliver for the country.
Mr. Speaker, this week, the Nation has come together to celebrate National Police Week. It is a time to honor the brave men and women who wear the badge and put their lives on the line every single day to protect our families and our communities.
In the Big First and across the country, law enforcement officers run towards danger when many would run away. They wake up every day with a calling to uphold the rule of law, serve their neighbors, and keep their communities safe. Yet, too often, they are met with hostility and policies from Washington that make their job harder and put their safety at risk.
Let me be clear. I unapologetically stand with the men and women in blue. I will always oppose any effort to defund, demoralize, or dismantle the law enforcement agencies that keep our streets safe. These men and women put their lives on the line every day to make our communities stronger, safer, and more secure, and we should all be grateful.
I express my deepest gratitude to the police officers, Customs and Border Patrol agents, detectives, State troopers, sheriffs, investigators, correction officers, drug enforcement agents, and U.S. marshals who have dedicated their careers to serving their communities. Today and every day we recognize their sacrifice and honor in all that they do to serve our great Nation.
America is grateful for all that they do, and I am grateful for them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to honor the courageous law enforcement officers from New Mexico who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our communities.
Every day across our country and in my home State, law enforcement officers wake up, put on the badge, and commit themselves to protecting our neighbors. It is a calling that demands bravery, sacrifice, and unwavering dedication.
This week, we remember those who answered the call and never returned home.
This year, three officers from New Mexico are being added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial wall here in Washington: Corrections Officer Roberto Rodriguez of Dona Ana County, Patrol Officer Jonah Hernandez of the Las Cruces Police Department, and Patrolman Justin C. Hare of the New Mexico State Police.
I also want to honor those who recently did not have the opportunity to come home: Las Cruces Police Officer
To their friends, families, and colleagues: Know that your loved ones are not forgotten. We grieve with you.
As we reflect on their sacrifice, we must also recommit ourselves to doing more for those who wear the badge today. That means investing in officer safety, mental health, and wellness. It means supporting their families, and it means ensuring they have the tools and resources to serve our communities with dignity and professionalism. Choosing a life of service and law enforcement is not easy. It comes with risks that most of us will never know, but because of officers like Roberto, Jonah, and Justin, our communities are safer, and our values of justice and service endure.
On behalf of all New Mexicans, I offer my deepest gratitude. May their memories be a blessing, and may we continue to honor them with action, compassion, and resolve.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional public servant from my district, Chief Jeremy Story.
Chief Story is from the Las Cruces Police Department, my hometown, and he is someone I was proud to serve with in local government. Chief Story has spent over 18 years in service to Las Cruces, rising through the ranks from cadet to chief of police. He is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, a graduate of New Mexico State University, and a man deeply rooted in the values of duty, accountability, and community.
Earlier this year, our community faced a horrific mass shooting, an act of senseless violence that shook Las Cruces to its core. In the face of this tragedy, Chief Story responded swiftly and with compassion. His leadership was grounded in facts, calm under pressure, and, most importantly, rooted in empathy for the victims, their families, and all of those affected.
At a time when our community needed strength and clarity, Chief Story was there, not only with answers, but with presence. He brought together law enforcement, emergency responders, and community leaders, not just to respond, but to begin the healing of our community.
In May of this year, he was named Citizen of the Year by the Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce. That recognition was well-earned. Today, I want to make sure that his dedication is honored here on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all New Mexicans, I thank Chief Jeremy Story for his continued leadership and unwavering commitment to the people of Las Cruces.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to honor the men and women in law enforcement for their invaluable service to our Nation.
I especially thank all of the police officers in my district who work tirelessly to ensure that southeastern Arizona is safe, secure, and the best place to live and to carry out our own American Dream.
During times of crisis, when others run away, our brave police officers run toward danger, putting themselves at risk to protect life and property.
Their courage, selflessness, and dedication deserve our deepest respect, not just this week, but every single day.
Let us also remember, honor, and mourn the officers who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Their legacy lives on in the lives they protected, the officers they mentored, and the communities they kept safe.
Mr. Speaker, I thank every single office across this great Nation for their service. We are a stronger, safer, and more prosperous Nation because of them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today full of pride to congratulate Cochise County Teacher of the Year and Carmichael Elementary School's fifth grade teacher Shanequa Matthias.
Mr. Speaker, I thank her for her tireless efforts on behalf of our students.
I firmly believe that education is the pillar of the American Dream, and it is our teachers who care for our students, pass on the knowledge and skills that they need to succeed, and inspire them to dream big and embrace all of the opportunities our great Nation has to offer.
As a teacher, she embraced a nontraditional, engaging classroom style, where learning is less about memorization and more about creativity, play, and hands-on experience.
Her dedication, compassion, and unwavering belief in the potential of every single one of her students is deeply inspiring and has left a permanent mark on all who learn from her.
Her work is directly contributing to a bigger, better, and brighter future for Cochise County.
Mr. Speaker, I thank her for always uplifting her students. May she enjoy this well-deserved recognition. Once again, congratulations to Shanequa Matthias.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate CDO High School in Oro Valley for receiving an A+ School of Excellence Award by the Arizona Educational Foundation, the highest level recognition given to a public school. Go Dorados.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Innovation Academy in Oro Valley for receiving an A+ School of Excellence Award by the Arizona Educational Foundation, the highest State-level recognition given to a public school. Go Scorpions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Lawrence W. Cross Middle School in Tucson for receiving an A+ School of Excellence Award by the Arizona Educational Foundation, the highest State-level recognition given to a public school. Go Rams.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mica Mountain High School in Tucson for receiving an A+ School of Excellence Award by the Arizona Educational Foundation, the highest State-level recognition given to a public school. Go Thunderbolts.
MR. CISCOMANI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rattlesnake Ridge Elementary in Marana for receiving an A+ School of Excellence Award by the Arizona Educational Foundation, the highest State-level recognition given to a public school. Go Rattlesnakes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Sonoran Science Academy East in Tucson for receiving A+ School of Excellence Award by the Arizona Educational Foundation, the highest State-Level recognition given to a public school. Go Eagles.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Village Meadows Elementary in Sierra Vista for receiving an A+ School of Excellence Award by the Arizona Educational Foundation, the highest State-level recognition given to a public school. Go Wolves.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Wrightson Ridge School in Sahuarita for receiving an A+ School of Excellence Award by the Arizona Educational Foundation, the highest State-level recognition given to a public school. Go Road Runners.
Mr. Speaker, in March, I stood on this floor and sounded the alarm that Puerto Rico's energy crisis was about to get a lot worse starting in May due to selective power outages as a result of a lack of generation capacity.
I acknowledged then that the Government of Puerto Rico had a plan A to bring in barges with temporary generation capacity and to repair all generation plants. I offered to support those goals and put my office at the local government's disposition to help accomplish them.
I also said we needed a plan B in case plan A failed. I proposed three immediate steps: to demand transparency from the utility companies about outages; to promote energy conservation through education and incentives; and to provide backup power for the most vulnerable in the island.
Here we are. Last week, the government announced that the generation barges are no longer viable. One of the repaired units failed. This week, over 100,000 customers lost power in a selective outage announced by LUMA, the utility company, that very same day, leaving them unprepared.
Where is plan B? It doesn't exist.
Worse yet, the government is walking away from over $300 million in Federal appropriated funds for solar panels, and it is walking away from a $1 billion lawsuit against oil companies, a lawsuit that sought to compensate our people for environmental harms.
Yesterday, DHS Secretary Noem did not assure the people of Puerto Rico that the tens of billions of dollars that have been assigned for its reconstruction will be honored.
As I said in March, this administration, both the Puerto Rico administration and the Federal administration, did not create the energy crisis, but they are responsible if it worsens. They are responsible for fixing it, and right now they are failing.
I will not stop working. This month I led 14 of my colleagues in urging the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water to increase funding for the Department of Energy to support the resiliency and the modernization of Puerto Rico's grid. I also requested language to expedite delivery of generation assets to the island.
I sincerely hope that the Government of Puerto Rico and the Government of the United States corrects the course. No matter what, I will keep fighting for the people of Puerto Rico and for its energy future.
Mr. Speaker, I will briefly speak in Spanish, for the benefit of my constituents:
(English translation of the statement made in Spanish is as follows:)
I sincerely hope that the governments of Puerto Rico and the United States correct the course they are on regarding the energy crisis facing the island. But no matter what, I will continue working for the well-being and the future of the people of Puerto Rico and for a solution to their energy crisis.
Yo sinceramente espero que los gobiernos de Puerto Rico y Estados Unidos corrigan el curso que llevan en torno la crisis energetica que enfrenta la isla. Pero no importa que, yo seguire trabajando por el bienestar y el futuro del pueblo de Puerto Rico y la solucion a su problema energetico.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Puerto Rico will provide a translation to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, you remember this friendly and famous fellow, Bill, as in: I am just a bill here on Capitol Hill.
I go back to ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' because I think the President needs a civics lesson that the rest of us received as kids watching Saturday morning cartoons with our mouths full of Corn Flakes.
Today, I am proud to join Representatives Dave Min and Eugene Vindman and 30 cosponsors in introducing the Protect Our Constitution and Communities Act. It is just a bill on Capitol Hill, but it offers an opportunity to Congress to restore the rule of law against President Trump's unconstitutional highjacking of Federal spending.
As we all learned in school, two separate provisions of Article I of our Constitution allocate what is known as the power of the purse to Congress. As articulated by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, our Founders made the spending power the bedrock of the Constitution's allocation of powers in our government. They sought to ensure that the expenditure of the people's money would remain in that body that is closest to the people.
No longer. Under the dodgy dictatorship of DOGE, we have seen the unconstitutional and haphazard seizure of billions of Federal dollars critically needed in communities throughout our country for everything from food safety inspections to healthcare for veterans. Although DOGE has failed to meet any of Elon Musk's overblown claims for saving taxpayer dollars, DOGE has done a superb job of creating chaos.
With cuts of thousands of employees in the SSA, for example, the website that millions of Social Security recipients depend upon for services and information has crashed four times in only 10 days. We have seen shutdowns of critical health research. Tens of thousands of renters will be unable to pay their summer utility bills, and thousands more parents will be stranded without Head Start childcare.
All of this is in violation of our Federal appropriations laws, laws that this Congress passed and the President signed, a far cry from the constitutional imperative that the President ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' so says Article II.
If the President wants to spend differently than the law dictates, the Constitution provides him with a couple of options.
First, he can introduce a bill, and he can ask Congress to change its spending priorities. It shouldn't be hard to persuade this Congress because our Republican majorities in both Houses have been unable to muster the courage to oppose other Trumpian blunders, whether they are tariffs that burden families with higher grocery bills or the deprivation of millions of Americans without healthcare coverage or the kleptocratic meme coin schemes to enrich the Trump family by more than $200 million. President Trump can simply ask Congress to pass a bill here on Capitol Hill.
Another option is provided through a 1974 law, the Impoundment Control Act, or ICA. Under the ICA, the President can notify Congress when he intends to withhold or impound funds through either deferral or rescission. The law requires the President to provide Congress and the public with the reason for the impoundment, along with the estimated impacts on our communities.
The Presidents, throughout the history since the passage of the ICA in 1974, have followed the law providing notice to Congress on 243 occasions since it was enacted; that is, until President Trump took office this January. Instead, Donald Trump and DOGE have haphazardly frozen, blocked, and unlawfully impounded funds.
Now, President Trump may have told a reporter 2 weeks ago that he does not know if he has an obligation to follow the Constitution. He actually took an oath to do just that only 115 days ago.
POCCA, Protect Our Constitution and Communities Act, will hold him accountable for doing so. It will empower American States, cities, and individuals to fight back when they are harmed by the executive branch's unlawful impoundment of funds. By giving Americans a right of action to seek injunctions or damages, POCCA gives the ICA and Article I of our Constitution real teeth. By waiving qualified immunity, it would make Elon Musk and any other administration officials who willfully break the law personally liable.
Mr. Speaker, this week, a group of Afrikaners arrived in the United States. They were greeted with open arms and American flags. Every single one of them skipped to the front of the line thanks to the expedited pathway that the administration handed them.
Although they are not facing any imminent threat, nor any persecution, according to this administration, these farmers were victims who were being brutally killed as a part of a genocide. These claims are absolutely false.
We must ask ourselves: Why wasn't any grace extended to those fleeing the Democratic Republic of the Congo, home to the deadliest conflict in the world? There is no temporary protected status for them.
Why wasn't any grace extended to Afghans, who helped our soldiers at war and risked their lives for the American people? This administration ended their deportation protections on the same day they welcomed Afrikaners.
For those Haitians who fled instability and gang violence, why were TPS and humanitarian parole ripped away from them?
Around the world, we have victims of war, famine, and bloodshed, but they have been left out to dry, where these Afrikaners were welcomed with open arms and, once again, without any persecution or risk of harm.
We can't simply open our doors to the vulnerable when they serve political purposes. Refugee policies should never align with an agenda. It should serve those who are in need, those families overseas who will be murdered if America abandons them, not to people who serve a political purpose and for political gain.
They should be awarded the same pathway that Afrikaners were given.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Dr. John Cross, who just delivered this morning's opening prayer.
John is the senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Sarasota and has been the pastor for many, many years. John committed his life to Christ in his childhood and ultimately decided to pursue a career in the ministry.
He is a proud graduate of Mercy University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he earned his master of divinity degree and his doctor of ministry.
His leadership has extended beyond the local church, having served as the president of the Florida Baptist Convention Pastors' Conference and president of the Florida Baptist State Convention.
John is married to Dawn, and together they have been blessed with 5 children, 3 sons-in-law, a daughter-in-law, and 10 grandkids.
I deeply value his faith leadership in my life, my family's life, and our community. I am grateful for his presence here today.
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, tens of thousands of law enforcement officers from across the country traveled to Washington, D.C., for National Police Week.
Established in 1962 through a joint resolution of Congress, National Police Week is a time for our Nation to honor the courageous men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.
These officers gave their lives to protect our families, our neighborhoods, and our way of life. Their legacy lives on in the communities they served and in the continued service of those who wear the badge today.
At a time when violent crime is rising and law enforcement officers face growing hostility, we must stand firmly behind those who risk their lives to uphold the law.
This is why I am proud to cosponsor legislation that honors fallen officers and strengthens protections for those who continue to serve. I thank every officer who puts on the uniform each day with courage and conviction. On behalf of a grateful nation, we salute them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to recognize a new chapter in public safety leadership for the city of Dallas.
On May 5, Dallas officially welcomed two exceptional leaders, Daniel Comeaux as chief of police and Justin Ball as chief of fire-rescue.
Chief Comeaux has over 30 years of law enforcement experience, including his recent role as Special Agent in Charge of the DEA's Houston Field Division. His leadership has been marked by intelligence- driven crime reduction and a collaborative approach to community policing.
Chief Ball, a nearly 30-year veteran of Dallas Fire-Rescue, has risen through every rank since joining the department in 1997. His dedication and innovative leadership have been instrumental in advancing the department's mission to protect and serve our community.
These appointments reflect Dallas' commitment to public safety and community trust. I commend City Manager Kimberly Tolbert for her thoughtful selection of these leaders.
I thank Chiefs Comeaux and Ball for their service. I look forward to supporting their efforts here in Congress to help ensure the safety and well-being of all Dallas residents.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to honor the brave men and women in law enforcement who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. These officers stood on the front lines to protect our communities, uphold the rule of law, and defend the safety of our citizens, often at a great personal risk.
We remember their courage, their selflessness, and their unwavering commitment to service. Behind each badge was a story, a family, and a legacy that will not be forgotten.
We offer our deepest gratitude and our heartfelt condolences to the families who carry the burden of their loss. Their loved ones are heroes, and their memory will live on in our prayers and in the freedoms they helped safeguard.
Let's continue to support all those who wear the badge and to honor those who gave everything to protect us.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Maria Macias Sanchez.
Maria was born in Agua Prieta, Mexico. She then came to the United States in pursuit of the American Dream. She married Ignacio and settled down in my hometown of Anaheim to raise a family of seven children, including our own colleagues, Congresswomen Linda Sanchez and Loretta Sanchez. Today, she remains the only mother in the country to have two daughters serve in Congress.
Maria was a teacher who believed that education was the key to the middle class, and she was a role model for our community. In 2008, my alma mater, Cal State Fullerton, designated her as an outstanding alumna.
Maria was a trailblazer for us. Her contributions to our community were tremendous. She will always be in our heart. I thank Maria. We will never forget her.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of National Police Week, which serves as a reminder to remember and memorialize law enforcement officers who have fallen in the line of duty.
During this week, I am reminded of a quote from Matthew chapter 5, verse 9: ``Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they shall be called the children of God.''
Our law enforcement officers put themselves in harm's way every day in the pursuit of justice and protection of the innocent. They are the thin blue line that represents courage when faced with unbelievable chaos and uncertainty.
One of the greatest strengths of law enforcement is their ability to bridge gaps, forge connections, and build trust within our communities. For our officers, stopping criminals, saving innocent lives, and helping our communities is more than a job. It is a way of life.
I thank them for everything they do to protect and safeguard our communities.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday President Donald Trump and His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani of Qatar signed a historic $1.2 trillion trade agreement, including the purchase of $96 billion of South Carolina-made Boeing 787 Dreamliners.
As the manufacturing home of 787 Dreamliners, this creates thousands of Boeing jobs in South Carolina and also creates jobs for 200 suppliers throughout the Palmetto State, including AGY of Aiken, Zeus of Orangeburg, and Prysmian of Lexington.
I congratulate Boeing President Kelly Ortberg and the Boeing team.
President Trump is delivering on his promise to bring back Made in America, promoting stability in the Middle East, and liberating Syria.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Trump is reinstituting existing laws to protect American families with peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies, and yesterday Putin threatening Estonia with Russian overflights in the Baltic Sea, verified today by European Parliamentarian Rihards Kols of Latvia.
Mr. Speaker, this Police Week, I rise to honor four fallen heroes from the Harris County Sheriff's Office whose names will soon be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial:
Investigator John Coddou was a U.S. Army veteran and a 20-year member of the Harris County Sheriff's Office. His wife said he made people feel seen.
Deputy Rondald Bates served 31 years with the Harris County Sheriff's Office. His son Derrick now proudly carries his badge as a deputy.
Deputy Brad Sweetman spent 39 years in service, but his main job was simply being a daddy and a paw-paw.
Deputy Fernando Esqueda was just 28. He was as good of a musician as he was a crime fighter.
These men were patriots. They loved this country, and Texans are safer because of them. Mr. Speaker, I ask that they never be forgotten by this House and that we enter their stories into the Record.
Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have repeated the phrase ``budgets are about priorities'' a lot lately.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what really signals someone's priorities? It is their actions.
Just last week, we witnessed a group of elected officials storm an ICE facility, demanding sympathy for illegal aliens who are violent gang members, rapists, and murderers.
Mr. Speaker, each of us is elected to represent our constituents and put American citizens first. The idea that someone could take the oath and then storm through law enforcement simply boggles the mind.
If my colleagues want to talk about priorities, Mr. Speaker, here is one they should remember: The safety of law-abiding Americans is more important than the demands of foreign criminals.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the outstanding contributions made by At Home on the Sound to benefit senior citizen residents of Larchmont and Mamaroneck. Tonight, they are celebrating their 15th anniversary with their Crystal Celebration. I can't be there in person, but we are there in spirit.
At Home provides a support system to help seniors continue to enjoy a vibrant lifestyle as they age--able to remain in their homes and highly active. At Home volunteers and professionals deliver a monthly schedule of educational programs, active discussion groups, social gatherings, and the necessary transportation.
When I retire, not that long from now, I know exactly where I can go to learn how to paint and play bridge, canasta, mahjong, and a host of other recreations.
At Home on the Sound complements the already active senior recreation programs offered by the Village of
I congratulate them on 15 great years. The best is yet to come.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sergeant Olav Chaney, of the Colorado Springs Police Department, for his 35 years of service to our community.
I had the pleasure of taking Sergeant Chaney and his family last night on a Capitol tour, and a delightful family he has.
Sergeant Chaney has also served us in the United States Army. He has become a recognized leader within the police department, and Sergeant Chaney helps lead the Downtown Area Response Team and the Homeless Outreach Team, where he serves our vulnerable population with compassion and with grace.
Sergeant Chaney has also served as Santa Claus for the Toys for Tots program. He is part of the honor guard, and he is an active participant in the Cadet Explorers program.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in Congress to join me in thanking Sergeant Olav Chaney for his dedication and his service to the Pikes Peak region, to Colorado, and to America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Georgia's Fifth Congressional District to honor Mr. Robert ``Bob'' Willis on a very special 99th birthday.
Mr. Willis has lived a life of service, and I am proud to help him celebrate his 99 years of life and more than 75 years of uninterrupted service to Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc.
Born in Louisville, Kentucky, in 1926, Mr. Willis served in the Navy during World War II and was initiated into the Beta Mu Chapter at Kentucky State University in 1949. From there, Mr. Willis would go on to serve in many leadership roles in the fraternity, including district director of Georgia and southern regional vice president.
Mr. Willis' unceasing fraternal dedication has earned him the Alpha Award of Merit from General President Darryl Matthews, the highest award that Alpha Phi Alpha can bestow on a member.
Mr. Willis is an exemplification of Men of Distinction, his brotherhood's moniker. I congratulate him on his 99th birthday and for his life of service to his community. I hope that he is enjoying this day in Atlanta.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to honor the life and sacrifice of Deputy Sheriff John Randall McCrary of Lauderdale County, Alabama.
Deputy McCrary dedicated over 15 years to law enforcement, serving with both the Lauderdale County Sheriff's Office and the Rogersville Police Department, where he was promoted to investigator.
In 2016, Deputy McCrary was shot in the line of duty. Though he survived the attack, he endured years of medical complications until his untimely passing on February 28, 2024.
This week, his name was added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, D.C., where his sacrifice will be remembered for generations to come.
To the McCrary family in north Alabama, I extend my deepest gratitude and heartfelt condolences. As we remember Deputy McCrary, let us also honor all the brave men and women in law enforcement who sacrificed their lives for our safety.
This week serves as a great reminder of the daily courage it takes to wear the badge and of our responsibility to support those who protect and serve each of us.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the loss of a true trailblazer and my dear friend, Susan Tose Spencer. She was the first and only general manager, legal counsel, and vice president in NFL history, leading the Philadelphia Eagles.
After moving to Las Vegas, Susan started her nonprofit, A Level Playing Field, which donated thousands to local high school football teams like the one at Rancho High School. She also helped launch a rowing program at Nevada State, which at the time did not have any competitive sports programs.
So many in Las Vegas and elsewhere have been touched by Susan's generosity and tenacity. Susan touched so many lives. Her mark on Las Vegas, Philadelphia, and the NFL will always be remembered.
Mr. Speaker, this week is National Police Week. It is always time every day to remember and give thanks to those who put on the uniform and stand in the line of fire for all of us.
I don't want to recite the number of officers killed and injured on duty. I want to talk about the upside of what they mean to us and what they mean for keeping us out of harm's way. They are there for us 24/7.
The number of officers we do lose should impact all of us greatly, but they are indeed the front line. This week, we can show at least some level of appreciation by passing legislation that will help them do their jobs.
One of these bills tracks violence against officers so we can respond in a meaningful way with meaningful action for them. Another is to help the retired officers keep the weapons they train with. Another one gives qualified officers more flexibility to carry their firearms. Indeed, it is a commonsense step.
Mr. Speaker, the badge doesn't completely come off when the shift ends. During this week, we ought to show our thanks, as we do every day.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 16th anniversary of the Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka.
Today and every day, we stand in unity with the Eelam Tamil community. Survivors and their families are enduring ongoing struggles and oppression while they seek justice and recognition for their suffering from the Sri Lankan Government.
We must shine a light on the Tamil people and what they have endured. We must advocate for a peaceful resolution that respects the rights and dignity of all. We must ensure that the atrocities, like those that have happened with the Tamil genocide, never happen again.
The Tamil community's resilience in the face of adversity is a testament to their unwavering spirit and determination for justice.
Mr. Speaker, the Trevor Project estimates that at least one LGBTQ+ youth attempts suicide every 45 seconds. That is less time than my remarks will take today.
Instead of addressing this very real public health crisis that our Nation's youth face, the Trump administration has issued a budget proposal that seeks to eliminate funding for specialized crisis services for LGBTQ+ youth.
The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline has saved countless lives. Mr. Speaker, when you call that lifeline, you have the option to seek care via a specialist. Those specialists serve veterans, callers who speak Spanish, and LGBTQ+ youth.
Mr. Speaker, 1.2 million Americans have selected that last option, but it might not be an option for much longer.
The service has saved lives and allowed Americans to receive the care they need on the hardest days of their lives. To me, that is what public service is all about. It is about being there for folks on their hardest days.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues and this administration to support full funding for these lifesaving services.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 405, I call up the bill (H.R. 2255) to allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service weapons, 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 on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
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. 2255.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, will allow current or former Federal law enforcement officers in good standing to purchase a retired service weapon at salvage value from the Federal agency that issued the service weapon to the officer.
Under the bill, the administrator of general services would be required to establish a program to provide these purchases.
To be eligible to participate in the program, the officer must be in good standing with the agency and any firearm sold through the program must be sold within 6 months of the date when the firearm was retired.
Current Federal regulations require all Federal law enforcement agencies to destroy their firearms after they are retired from official use.
This regulation costs the American taxpayers millions of dollars every year. For example, in 2022, the Fraternal Order of Police notified Congress that multiple Federal law enforcement agencies were in the process of replacing their service weapons. The replacement of these service weapons accounted for the destruction of approximately 20,000 firearms, costing the taxpayers roughly $8 million.
Not only would this legislation cause agencies and the taxpayers to avoid that cost, but it would also recoup some of the taxpayers' dollars for the initial purchase of the firearm. American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for a service weapon twice, once at the initial purchase when it was acquired by the agency and then again when it is needlessly destroyed at the end of its life.
Law enforcement officers should have the opportunity to purchase the service weapon they used while serving in law enforcement.
By allowing officers to purchase their retired service weapons, this provides a starting point to keeping them safe so that they may protect their communities as well as themselves and their families.
This legislation is supported by 10 law enforcement organizations, the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Fraternal Order of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Sergeants Benevolent Association NYPD, and the National Treasury Employees Union.
I hope my colleagues across the aisle recognize this bill not as a partisan measure but, much like it was last year, in fact, bipartisan when it was voted on in the House.
This is a commonsense, cost-saving initiative that supports law enforcement and the American taxpayers.
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, I rise in opposition.
I thank my colleague from South Carolina for his excellent presentation, but this bill is a case study in a legislative majority that is in search of not common ground and common sense but rather extreme measures that divide and polarize the Congress and the people.
Once upon a time this was a sensible, bipartisan bill led by our Democratic colleague, Val Demings from Orlando, Florida, who had been a police chief. Her bill allowed Federal agencies to sell handguns that they were no longer using to the active-duty officers, who previously carried those handguns, for fair market value as long as they completed a background check like everybody else in America.
Mr. Speaker, last Congress, Republicans weakened that bipartisan bill, which I think commanded unanimous support in Congress, by stripping the background check requirement while still restricting the bill to handgun sales to current law enforcement officers only. So we were willing to go along with that compromise. We accepted that in the last Congress.
When the bill came to the floor for a vote, however, Republicans filled the bill with a menagerie of more outlandish and extreme provisions, and
When we marked up this legislation, we offered an amendment that would allow them to go back to the compromise version of the bill, a version of the bill that they themselves had introduced and that we support, but they refused to do it.
So today, in place of a reasonable, commonsense, and common-ground bill, Republicans are dug in on another extreme proposal that riddles our gun laws with loopholes and politicizes what should have been a simple, bipartisan measure.
The bill before us today would allow surplus firearms to be sold not only to active Federal law enforcement officers in good standing, but also to retired law enforcement officers.
Because the bill now has no background check requirement, it could create a situation in which it would be possible for an officer to retire and commit a crime, such as domestic violence or assault, that would ordinarily render him or her ineligible to purchase and possess firearms but then still be able to buy a firearm from the Federal Government without any background check at all.
While the bill includes a good standing requirement, as they remind us, this is plainly meaningless as applied to retired officers who may have left the department in perfectly good standing but could not pass a background check today.
Agencies can certify that an officer is in good standing when they retire, but they have no way to track the behavior of their former officers after that if they cannot do a background check. So an agency could unknowingly sell a surplus firearm to someone who cannot lawfully buy a gun, and all of this would occur under the statute without any background check at all.
The bill also allows for the sale of any firearm except machine guns. That includes not just handguns, but also assault weapons, destructive devices like hand grenades, and even firearms that are subject to heightened restrictions under the National Firearms Act. Moreover, it allows them to be sold at salvage value, effectively making it so that the Federal Government and the taxpayers would actually be subsidizing gun sales. They replaced fair market value with salvage value.
My colleagues have claimed that the bill would not really allow for the sale of all of these types of firearms because it only applies, they say, to service weapons. However, they need to read their own bill. It allows for the sale of any firearm other than a machine gun that is issued to an officer. That means if an officer uses not just a handgun, but an assault rifle, a grenade launcher, or anything classified as a destructive device, any firearm or destructive device used by a SWAT team, any firearm or destructive device used by the Secret Service, so long it is not a machine gun, if issued to an officer, can be sold back to him or her without a background check under the bill at salvage value.
If that is not what they mean, and they have been scrambling to deny it, then they should change the language of the bill because that is plainly what the bill says. Forgive me for insisting on scrupulous attention to words, Mr. Speaker, but that is the business we are in when we enter the legislative process.
Taken together, the bill makes it so that an officer could retire, commit a crime, become a person who may not legally own firearms under Federal law, then buy from the Federal Government a handgun, a semiautomatic assault rifle, a sawed-off shotgun, or even a grenade launcher, at a discount, with no background check at all.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a famously do-nothing or do-very-little Congress. They don't have much on their agenda other than slashing $880 billion from Medicaid, SNAP, Meals on Wheels, Head Start, and the other programs that actually serve Americans who don't live like Elon Musk and Donald Trump. However, Mr. Speaker, you would think they would have the time at least to write a bill that would not permit these kinds of things to happen.
These are unacceptable risks of dangerous weapons being sold to a person who may not legally have one. So reluctantly, I must oppose this bill which began as a Democratic bill which commanded unanimous, bipartisan support before.
Nothing in this bill is going to help law enforcement officers actually do their jobs, which was how all of this was introduced when we first started out today. Indeed, it doesn't provide a single Federal dollar to help local law enforcement.
In fact, our colleagues have not advanced a single bill during this entire Police Week or even this entire session of Congress to increase funding to State and local police.
In fact, the party that now controls the White House and both Chambers of Congress is now letting DOGE, Elon Musk, and their midnight crew of computer hackers dismantle entire agencies, fire thousands of Federal workers without cause, and generally wreak havoc across the government.
Last month, DOGE decided unilaterally to cancel more than $500 million of Department of Justice grant funding for local law enforcement, public safety, and crime prevention programs all over the country in our communities.
What did we hear from our colleagues across the aisle?
Did they stand up to DOGE and object to this defunding of the police?
No, Mr. Speaker. Our colleagues said absolutely nothing, and I mean that literally.
During the Judiciary Committee markup of the reconciliation bill, Democrats offered a simple amendment to immediately restore hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for the police and for hundreds of other essential public safety grant programs dismantled by, as far as we can tell, one employee at DOGE.
Every single one of our GOP colleagues voted against that amendment, but they refused to utter a word in favor of Elon Musk's chainsaw massacre of local law enforcement and public safety programs. They don't want to be quoted supporting DOGE, but even if their quotes don't support DOGE, their votes support DOGE, and they have voted not to restore hundreds of millions of dollars that DOGE cut from our State, local, and county law enforcement and public safety organizations.
In case some of our colleagues haven't heard yet from their outraged constituents about this, let me offer just one example of more than 365 grants that were abruptly terminated by DOGE. That is one grant program per day all across the country.
DOGE cut funding for a program called the Rural Violent Crime Reduction Initiative, which provided funding to dozens and dozens of rural law enforcement agencies across America allowing them, with their strapped budgets, to hire more officers and purchase up-to-date equipment and technology. They also supported rural victim services and crime prevention programs. This program was created to assist small, rural agencies that need Federal funding but are so small, short- staffed, or underresourced, they wouldn't even have the ability to apply for the funding.
One such recipient of this grant from the Rural Violent Crime Reduction Initiative was the Shawano, Wisconsin Police Department, which was using the funding to pay for a detective dedicated to investigating and solving unsolved violent crimes and to stop narcotics trafficking in their community.
The police department said that the additional detective would build trust with community members, increase patrols in hot spot areas, enhance crime prevention, and sustain a reduction in violent crime in narcotics-related crime. This is just one of the hundreds of rural police departments and other agencies using this funding from this one grant program from 365 that were suddenly terminated by one DOGE employee running amuck in the Department of Justice.
This is funding, Mr. Speaker, that we in the House of Representatives voted for on an overwhelming bipartisan basis and that the Senate overwhelmingly voted for on a bipartisan basis. We had bicameral passage and presentment to the President. The President signed it into law. The Department of Justice got the funding. The Department of Justice programmed the funding, and the Department of Justice awarded those grants all across America.
Mr. Speaker, guess who stopped it without my knowledge, without their
It was one DOGE employee, one of Elon Musk's junior lieutenants who spent his career at Tesla, and then he decided he was going to wipe out hundreds of millions of dollars going to our people.
Mr. Speaker, are our colleagues going to allow DOGE to get away with this critical destruction of law enforcement in rural communities, urban communities, and suburban communities across the land?
Apparently so. They remain silent on it. They won't utter a word in favor of it, but they don't utter a peep against it. They just vote for it. They just sheepishly get in line and support this destruction of what we had already voted for to put into action.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, which is a trivial distraction from what is really going on in America today. They are dismantling the priorities of the people as passed through the people's House and through the Senate and signed into law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in actually standing up for law enforcement, for the police, and for community safety. I would invite them to join us in actually standing up for the Article I powers of Congress. I hope they will join us in rejecting DOGE's deranged funding cuts that are undermining public safety and harming law enforcement across the land.
Mr. Speaker, just to discuss a few of the extraneous comments that were made by the minority party, the officer that is currently employed by a Federal law enforcement agency must be in good standing. In order for that to happen, obviously, they are not committing crimes.
Some of these things that are kind of coming out that the majority party is talking about or has talked about is the officer must be in good standing. If they have blemishes on their record, they are no longer employed or employable by that Federal agency.
Second of all, grenade launchers are not issued by Federal law enforcement agencies. They might be used by Federal law enforcement, but they are not issued to that officer. Sawed-off shotguns, the same thing, they are not issued to an officer. The officer must be in good standing.
In the event that the officer is retired within that 6-month period, these weapons don't sit around with their name on them in a locker room somewhere waiting for the weapon to also be retired. It is then issued to another officer.
The program only extends if you are retired, and you happen to have the ability when you are retired to purchase that retired service weapon, you have a 6-month period in which to do that. The window is very short.
GSA, under the bill, has every opportunity to come up with the rules and regulations related to this. A lot of this is distraction. This is the same bill that we passed last year. In fact, 13 Democrats supported this bill. The smoke and mirrors that is created by the minority just don't actually exist in reality.
This is a very commonsense bill. Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every single day. They should be able to purchase their service weapon. If the officer is retired and their service weapon is retired roughly commensurate to when they actually physically retire, then they can also purchase that. Anyone who is actually charged and convicted with a crime, that the gentleman talks about, would be precluded from doing this.
GSA has all the rights to come up with the regulations themselves. The statute is very clear. Law enforcement officers are not issued machine guns. They are not issued grenade launchers. They are not issued sawed-off shotguns or missile launchers or helicopters. These are not part and parcel to an officer's weapons in the line of duty. They are issued handguns, maybe a shotgun, and maybe a rifle. That is it.
These things are ultimately distractions. The DOGE stuff I won't respond to at all because it doesn't need to be.
This is a commonsense bill supported by a lot of law enforcement agencies, a lot of law enforcement organizations, and was voted on in a bipartisan fashion last Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps my friend from South Carolina would indulge me a few questions because I am puzzled by some of the representations that were just made.
The gentleman answers a point I didn't make. He said that the officer must be in good standing in order to be sold the gun. That is true if they are an officer. What if they are a retired officer? What does it mean to be a retired officer who is in good standing when that person no longer has a record and the department is not keeping track of them? That is why the original legislation insisted that there be a background check.
I am wondering if the gentleman would answer that question.
Well, you get that one.
Let me ask another question.
The gentleman says that only handguns would be issued to officers, whether they are currently officers or whether they are retired, but SWAT teams are included by your legislation, I believe. Are not members of SWAT teams issued semiautomatic weapons and other kinds of guns? Are you saying that this applies only to handguns? If so, why didn't you write it to apply only to handguns?
The gentleman said it applied to grenade launchers, sawed- off shotguns, and the like. Those are permitted to be used, but they are not issued to an officer.
That is while you are an officer. Now let's say you retire and you commit domestic violence or assault or battery or some other offense 2 years later. The department is not notified of that, is not keeping track of it. What does it mean to say a retired person is in good standing if they have committed a crime in the meantime?
Then we are establishing legislative history that, according to the gentleman, this legislation is designed to apply only to handguns and not to all of these other things which the gentleman says are irrelevant. Is that right?
Mr. Speaker, I will reclaim my time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
They went to the pains of excluding machine guns, saying that they didn't want a retired officer to be able to purchase a machine gun, but then they are allowing grenade launchers, semiautomatic weapons, and all these other weapons. I don't understand why, when the gentleman now is vigorously protesting that that is not the intention of the statute, that is not the intention of the legislation.
Please rewrite the bill to be in accord with what you are saying, which is that this applies only to handguns. Otherwise, you are just multiplying
Now you are saying we want the GSA to issue a whole bunch of regulations to do the work that Congress refuses to do. I think you are moving a little bit closer to what Congresswoman Demings' original legislation was if you limit it to handguns. What she said is: Obviously, someone who retires from the force can go out and purchase whatever weapons they want. This was the sentimental value of allowing an officer to purchase a gun that he or she used when they were actually in service, at fair market value.
Now you have riddled it with all of these other exceptions and completely changed the meaning of the legislation in a way that moves us backwards in terms of public safety. In America, 80 or 90 percent of the American people want a universal violent criminal background check.
We think we have enough loopholes as it is, with the internet loophole, which the majority refuses to close; with the private gun show loophole, which the majority refuses to close; with the person-to- person private sale loophole, which the majority refuses to close.
We don't need more loopholes. America already stands out as an outlier in the world among advanced industrialized countries. We have rates of gun violence and gun homicide that are 10 or 20 times higher than Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Israel, and Japan. You name it, nothing comes close to us.
Instead of helping police officers by getting guns out of the hands of criminals, our colleagues are just looking for ways to create more loopholes in the laws for purchasing guns.
Mr. Speaker, again, I just wanted to nail down into the weeds here exactly what the legislation says. The term ``firearm'' is the meaning given that term in section 921(a) of Title 18, excluding any machine gun. They have properly decided that we should not put more machine guns into the stream of commerce.
What is still swept within it? Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, rocket, missile having explosive or incendiary charge of more than \1/4\ ounce, mine, device, and so on.
Why would we open this up if that is not the intention of my colleague? I take him completely in good faith at his word. Let's write that out of the bill because what we have seen is that people who mean to do harm to other people will exploit any other opportunity to do it. I don't understand the logic of excluding machine guns but then sweeping in all of these other dangerous weapons.
I am happy to yield to my friend if he wants to elaborate on that, or I will reserve my time. Maybe he can use some of his time.
Mr. Speaker, there is another bit of business we need to clean up here, and I would invite my distinguished colleague from South Carolina to join me in this.
We voted back on March 15, 2022, to erect a plaque in the Congress of the United States to honor the police officers who fought tooth and nail, with valor, courage, and heroism, to defend us against mobs of thousands of marauding rioters and insurrectionists, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, who came to try to overthrow a Presidential election. They stormed the Capitol. They injured, wounded, hospitalized, brutalized more than 140 officers, many of whom are still suffering from the physical and mental wounds today.
We voted back on March 15, 2022, to put a plaque up in Congress to honor them, and it 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.''
Alas, Mr. Speaker, their heroism seems already to have been forgotten by some of our colleagues. The plaque exists. We have the plaque. It has been produced. Yet, the Speaker of the House refuses to put the plaque up 2 years later. Why? Why will we not honor the police officers, like Sergeant Gonell who was forced to leave the police force because of the severe injuries that he suffered then and is trying to support his family on around half the salary that he had before?
Why would we not honor the officers like Michael Fanone, who wasn't even on duty that day, but he heard about the riots at the Capitol, and he came down to join the fight with his brothers and sisters in blue and was nearly killed? He begged for his life to the mob, saying he had four daughters of his own. He had a heart attack. Will we not honor Michael Fanone?
Will we honor Officer Harry Dunn who fought for hours and hours, enduring not just other physical attacks but savage racial epithets and abuse?
Will we honor Officer Hodges who nearly died trying to stop the mob from entering the Capitol? He got caught in the doorway on the western front of the Capitol. He was tortured in front of the eyes of the world. You have probably seen the pictures of him being caught and beaten by the mob, which that day was wielding Confederate battle flags, American flags, baseball bats, steel pipes, broken furniture, you name it, to attack our officers.
These people gave blood, sweat, and tears. Several officers died in the aftermath, including Officer Brian Sicknick who died the very next day after receiving grievous wounds and injuries.
We could be doing a lot more for them. President Trump wants a fund for January 6. That is good, right? No. He wants a fund for the rioters' families. He wants a fund for the insurrectionists that he pardoned, not for the police officers. Will my colleagues say anything about that?
At the very least, let's put up the plaque to honor these officers. Not a single Member of the majority has given us one reason why this plaque, which is completed, has not been hung in the Capitol of the United States. Why not? If you don't respect the law enforcement officers and the police who fought tooth and nail for us that day, at least respect the rule of law. This was supposed to be up 2 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, forgive my passion, but I was there. I was here on January 6, 2021. I heard them chanting: ``Hang Mike Pence.'' ``Hang Mike Pence.'' The words are still echoing in my mind from that day. They were looking for Nancy Pelosi. They were quoted as saying they wanted to assassinate Nancy Pelosi. They stormed her office. They took over her office.
Do we honor police officers for real, or do we only honor them if it is politically convenient for us to honor them? Like the prosecutors, the new Attorney General got in. The new Acting U.S. Attorney, Ed Martin, got in. They were forced to withdraw that nomination after it turned out he had appeared 150 different times on Russian propaganda networks, like Russia Today and Sputnik, and after it turned out he had all kinds of Neo-Nazi affiliations and friendships. Anyway, he got in. You know what he did? They fired more than a dozen of the most experienced veteran prosecutors in the Department of Justice. Why? Because they did their jobs, because they prosecuted the people who committed that massive assault on American democracy. The greatest mass assault, violent assault on the Capitol in the history of the United States. We have never seen anything like it.
This administration not only pardoned more than 1,500 people who participated in that brutality, in that attempt to overthrow an election, which Joe Biden won by more than 7 million votes, 306-232 in the electoral college, not only did they pardon all of those offenders, whether they were nonviolent or violent--and a lot of them have already gone on to reoffend since they got their pardons from Donald Trump--not only did they do that but they wanted to sack the prosecutors for doing their jobs.
Is there anybody on that side of the aisle who will speak out against this obscenity? No, I don't think so.
Is there anybody on that side of the aisle who is uttering support for law enforcement during our law enforcement week who will say it is time to put up the plaque in honor of the officers who defended us?
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues have some good reason for doing what they are doing. The Framers of the Constitution thought that people who participated in the government would come to identify with their branch of government. That is why I thought, well, when they stormed the Capitol
Ten Republicans did join all the Democrats in doing that. That was historic. Seven Republican Senators voted to convict after seeing overwhelming evidence.
Mitch McConnell also found the evidence completely convincing, but he said that he didn't think the Senate has jurisdiction to try to convict a former President, despite the fact that that contradicted two centuries of precedent, and the Senate ruled on the very first day against that motion to dismiss the charges. He said there was nothing that could be done, even though Donald Trump was actually, factually, ethically, and morally responsible for everything that happened.
When will my colleagues finally break from the cultish obedience to Donald Trump, who is now over in the Middle East on what looks like a business trip for him and his family? They are all raking in not just hundreds of millions of dollars but billions of dollars with their business deals.
My colleagues are back home doing his bidding, trying to slash $888 billion from Medicaid and the programs that the American people have built. Our parents and grandparents built those programs so we can take care of ourselves.
The richest man in the world and Donald Trump have another agenda. They have left your agenda behind. They left you guys to do the dirty work.
Donald Trump is collecting a $400 million flying grift gift from Qatar. They are giving him bribery force one. Nobody has ever seen anything like this in the history of the United States. They are trying to give him a jet plane.
It is humiliating for the American President to be flying around in a plane created by the dictator, the theocratic monster of Qatar, while they are collecting billions of dollars. His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has gotten $2 billion from Saudi Arabia.
This is totally in violation of the Constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 says that nobody holding an office of trust under the United States shall, without the consent of the Congress, collect a ``present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince, or foreign state.''
That is Donald Trump's new business, to go collect foreign government emoluments.
I hope my colleagues will join us in demanding that he come to Congress to ask for permission to keep that $400 million bug-riddled airplane that he wants to fly around on somebody else's tab. It is absurd, the lengths that they have gone to, to mangle and trample our Constitution.
Let's get back to law enforcement and the rule of law, starting with the Constitution of the United States of America. The President wants to keep all of these gifts from foreign dictators. Come to Congress.
That is what Abraham Lincoln did. The King of Siam gave Abraham Lincoln elephant tusks. This is in the middle of the Civil War. Check out the descent of honor and integrity in our country. In the middle of the Civil War, President Lincoln comes to Congress and says: Can I keep those elephant tusks? Congress comes back with a message: We love you, Honest Abe. You are doing a great job in the war, but no. Turn those over to the Department of the Interior.
My colleagues will not even demand that Donald Trump bring his corrupt gifts, his royal spoils, to the Congress of the United States to ask our consent. Every President has done it up until this one.
Let's get back to the rule of law. Let's enforce the Constitution. Let's honor the police officers who defended us. Let's stay away from bills that just put a lot more guns into traffic to make life more dangerous for police officers and for everybody in America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, is a very commonsense piece of legislation supported by Republicans and, at least last Congress, by 13 Democrats, as well. Fourteen Members across the aisle voted in favor of this same exact bill, and I encourage more Members to do so as we honor police this week and into the future.
Law enforcement officers are faced with danger every single day, not only on the job, but when they return to their homes. This commonsense bill honors them a little bit and shows them that we want them to have these weapons in their homes to protect them, their property, and their families, as well.
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 the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 405, I call up 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, 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 on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry) and the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
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.R. 2240.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from South Carolina?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, police officers risk their lives every day to protect our communities. I extend my sincere gratitude to all law enforcement officers and their families for their service and sacrifice.
Unfortunately, law enforcement officers face the continued threat of unprovoked and ambush-style attacks. The bill before us, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, would require the Attorney General to develop a series of reports related to violent attacks on law enforcement officers.
The left's defund the police movement continues to have ripple effects throughout the country, as violent crime remains high and criminals have become more brazen in their attacks against police officers.
In addition, rogue prosecutors and leftwing bail reform policies continue to allow more criminals on the street with no accountability.
Let me be clear: The threat to officer safety is very real, and we must take a stand against any defund the police rhetoric.
In 2024, 342 officers were killed in the line of duty, with 79 of them shot in 61 ambush-style attacks. As of May 1, 2025, 109 officers have been shot in the line of duty just this year.
This violence against law enforcement is unacceptable and underscores the importance of this legislation.
While the government collects basic information on these attacks, such as when the attack occurred and what types of weapons are used, more information is needed to help law enforcement officers prepare for, identify, and prevent future anti-police activity.
This legislation would also shed light on the mental health consequences of the attacks on law enforcement and other trauma law enforcement deals with on a daily basis. Mental health resources are another critical need for law enforcement officers, as they continue to risk their lives every day to keep their communities safe.
We must take care of those who do so much to take care of us.
This legislation is common sense. It will gather more information to help Congress explore the best possible solutions for our law enforcement officers.
I would like to mention that 146 of my colleagues across the aisle voted in favor of this legislation last Congress. It is incredibly bipartisan.
Let's all work together to stand against attacks on law enforcement and support our men and women in blue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this crucial legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act.
Law enforcement officers serve as our lifeline of defense against danger. With this bill, we have an opportunity to equip the Department of Justice and Congress with very crucial information to better understand and enhance officer safety.
Law enforcement officers deserve to return home safely to their families, knowing their well-being is truly a priority. Federal, State, local, and Tribal officers face very long hours, immense pressure, and unpredictable dangers every day. Over time, the constant strain of the job can take a significant toll on their bodies and minds.
While there are some mental health resources currently available to our officers, there is still so much more that we can and should be doing to ensure their wellness and, most definitely, their safety.
By prioritizing data-driven approaches to officer safety and wellness, we can address systemic risks, reduce preventable tragedies, and build a stronger, more resilient law enforcement system.
The goal is that the required report will provide us with insight into the challenges our officers face and help us to understand the additional support that they need to remain physically and mentally safe.
Federal law enforcement officers dedicate themselves to protecting our Nation, to protecting our communities, and it is our responsibility in this body to ensure that they receive the protection that they deserve.
Law enforcement officers face unparalleled risks every day, from physical violence to psychological traumas. According to the FBI, assaults against officers remain very, very high, with tens of thousands of them who are injured annually.
Beyond the line of duty, officers experience higher rates of PTSD, depression, and suicide compared to the general population. Yet, for too long, this body, Congress, has not done as much as we should to tackle these issues that they face.
This bill requires the collection and analysis of critical data on attacks on officers, injuries that they suffer, their mental health challenges, and wellness program effectiveness. Without accurate data, we are fighting blind.
By identifying trends, such as the frequency of attacks on officers or gaps in mental health support, we can implement targeted solutions to keep our officers safe and to keep them healthy.
Many officer fatalities and injuries are preventable with better training, better equipment, and better policies. For example, if data reveals that a significant number of injuries occurred during traffic stops, agencies can adopt safer tactics or deploy new technologies. If certain regions report higher rates of firearm-related fatalities, we can prioritize resources there.
Officer suicide rates outpace line-of-duty deaths. I will say this again: Officer suicide rates outpace line-of-duty deaths. Yet, stigma and inadequate resources prevent many of them from seeking help. This bill will help us track mental health trends, evaluate the effectiveness of peer support programs, and expand access to counseling. Healthy officers are better officers. They are more effective officers, both for their own well-being and for the communities that they serve.
When officers are safer, healthier, and better supported, they are better equipped to serve with professionalism and with empathy. Our communities benefit when law enforcement agencies are operating using data to improve practices rather than reacting to crises.
Yet, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act isn't just about gathering data and reporting statistics. It is about lives, and it is about public safety. It is about the officer who returns home safely to their family at night. It is about the rookie who gets lifesaving training, or the veteran who receives mental health care instead of suffering in silence.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to realize any of these benefits, this bill must be the first step that we take and definitely not the last. We must be prepared to act on the information that we get from these reports that come from this bill, much of which is already collected by the DOJ and other agencies. We must be prepared to provide tangible resources to our law enforcement, which I am sure the reports will suggest that they need.
As we observe National Police Week and talk about officer safety and wellness, I would be remiss if I did not call for the immediate restoration of hundreds of millions of dollars that are affecting nearly 40 States in public safety grant funding that the Department of Justice chose to abruptly terminate. Some of that canceled funding went to law enforcement training; support and other critical resources; and, more specifically, to addressing the health, safety, and wellness of law enforcement.
As I have here, President Trump's 2026 budget would have devastating impacts on public policy by cutting $1 billion across 40 Department of Justice grant programs which support police departments and reduce violent crime, hate crime, and crime against women.
Mr. Speaker, $646 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, for violence and terrorism has been terminated. I can go on and on, but I won't.
These terminations include a grant totaled at over $8 million to the National Policing Institute, which assisted rural police departments and district attorneys' offices to pay for violent crime investigators and programs to combat child sex abuse.
I also feel that it is necessary to mention once again, as the ranking member has, the plaque that we voted to hang in the Capitol more than 3 years ago to honor the countless officers who fought--and they died--to protect the lives of Members of Congress, all of us in this body. They not only fought to protect Members of Congress but staffers and other personnel and to save our democracy on January 6, 2021.
Mr. Speaker, hanging this plaque is the least that we could do to honor those who have fought and died and given their lives for us, this body. Hanging this plaque is required by law, a law that was passed. We passed the law over 3 years ago.
Why is this plaque not up? That is a simple question. Why is this law being defied? That is a simple question.
Many of those officers have been left feeling ignored and betrayed by the very same Members of Congress. They stand outside every single day to protect and watch over us. They feel betrayed.
Many times, they can't even look at us as we walk out the door because they feel betrayed. They fought to protect us on that day, January 6, and, yes, we still betray them.
Former U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell recently told our staff: Trump is treating the rioters like they were the ones defending the Capitol.
He went on to say of Trump: Calling January 6 ``a day of love,'' if that was a day of love, ``They almost `loved' me to death.''
If we really intend to support our officers, they should not be feeling this level of betrayal and disappointment in the government that they swore to defend and protect. Officers who put their lives on the line for us deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I will take a point of privilege to say that when I lost my son, Jordan, in Jacksonville, Florida, on November 23, 2012, at a convenience store gas station by a man who never should have had a gun, that convenience store family, the owners, at least had the decency to put a plaque up in remembrance of my slain son, who was simply stopping to get some chewing gum as he was going from one mall to the next with his friends. They at least had the decency, and my son wasn't doing anything to protect the Nation or protect Members of Congress. Yet and still, out of dignity and respect for someone who was slain unnecessarily, they at least had the decency to put up a plaque in remembrance of my son.
We should no less do that for these folks who stand here every single day. They would take bullets for us. Let's do the right thing. Why would we not honor them? We can't say one thing and do another, that we want to serve and protect them. We want to make their lives better. The American people are watching us. They are depending on us.
Mr. Speaker, let's do the right thing. Simply just put this plaque out for all of us, for their service to us and to this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, while I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, I also urge them to do more than just collect data and request reports from other officials. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2240, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, a bill that I introduced in response to the deeply troubling rise in targeted violence against our Nation's law enforcement.
Every day, officers across this great Nation put their lives on the line to keep our communities safe. Far too often, they, in fact, become the targets of violence simply for wearing the badge. This year alone-- this year alone, again--we are only in May--there have been 109 officers shot in the line of duty, 12 of whom tragically lost their lives.
Mr. Speaker, even more alarming is there have been 21 ambush-style attacks on law enforcement officers this year, resulting in 25 officers shot, 5 of whom were killed. These numbers do not account, though, even for the many instances where officers were fired upon but, fortunately, were not struck.
Mr. Speaker, ambush-style attacks are some of the most dangerous. They are calculated and often deadly, leading to higher rates of both injuries and fatalities. That is why I introduced this legislation to ensure that we are doing all that we can at the Federal level to understand, prevent, and respond to these targeted attacks.
The Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act enhances our ability to collect and, more importantly, to analyze data on violent acts against officers. This will empower agencies around the country with the information that they need to strengthen their responses and better protect their personnel.
Importantly, H.R. 2240 also calls for a comprehensive assessment of availability and use of mental health resources within law enforcement because protecting those who protect us must include supporting their mental well-being. We need to make sure that we get away from any shame that can sometimes happen when a law enforcement officer needs to reach out for some kind of mental health counseling.
If the Speaker would think about it, these men and women oftentimes see the worst of folks. They see folks who are in their worst state. They see the tragedies that hopefully most of us will go through life and never have to see, and they do it every day, day in and day out, because it is their job that they have chosen to do to keep us safe.
Mr. Speaker, these officers answer the call, day or night. They don't have a choice as to what they respond to. They run toward danger to safeguard our neighborhoods, and far too often, they pay a heavy price. We owe them more than our gratitude. We owe them action.
Mr. Speaker, I say this: There were a couple of comments about past events, some which happened before I came here as a new Member. Yet, I do remember very well the spring of 2020, when we saw many of our cities burned, looted, and destroyed. Some of them have not yet even recovered. Instead of law enforcement being supported by some in those local governments, they were vilified when they were out doing what they could to try to help. They were told to stand down and allow mobs to go in and destroy property.
I saw that firsthand, Mr. Speaker, in Raleigh. I literally watched folks roaming around and destroying windows, burning vehicles, shooting, all this kind of mayhem. I won't mention names, but I saw some colleagues on the other side who would kind of give cover and say: Well, it was understandable. It was a peaceful protest.
It is not a peaceful protest if you are destroying buildings. It is not a peaceful protest if you are attacking someone. It is not a peaceful protest if you are burning buildings, burning cars, and engaging in violent conduct.
Then we saw from that some of this antipolice that came about, the calls to defund the police. I am glad to see that I don't hear that very much anymore. I hope that foolish idea never gets raised again in this great Chamber because if it were not for the men and women in law enforcement, it would be a society of disorder and random violence. We owe these men and women all that we can do for them. We owe it to them to make sure that their jobs are safe.
Mr. Speaker, I think about a situation that happened in Wake County, North Carolina, in 2022, where a sheriff's deputy was ambushed and killed by an illegal immigrant. I am not trying to open up the debate on illegal immigration. Fortunately, this body has taken action, along with our President, to secure the border and to stop gang members from coming into this country.
Yet, someone who was in this country who shouldn't have even been here attacked and ambushed a Wake County deputy and killed him. These stories happen around the country.
This is one more piece--one more piece--in finally bringing some sanity, bringing some protection and providing protection for the American people, to make sure that they are not having to worry about gang members being allowed into the country, that we are not allowing illegal immigration to run amuck, and that we are not downing the police and somehow lifting up the criminals.
The American people were tired of that. They were tired of it. And guess what? They are getting results. This is one more piece to try to do this to help these men and women in law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the body's support. I encourage all of the Members to vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McBath for her extraordinary leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, which seeks to improve law enforcement officer safety and wellness by requiring that the AG and other Federal officials issue regular reports on attacks on police officers, aggression against police officers, and on officer mental health.
I salute Mr. Fry, a freshman to this body, for his stewardship of this bill. The collection of this information is important and useful, but the mere passive gathering of data does little or nothing to actually improve officer effectiveness or public safety.
In fact, none of the bills we have considered from the majority during this law enforcement week would actually produce any measurable gains in public safety.
We spent the week voting for bills that will do nothing really but increase the number of weapons on our streets, our buses, our trains, our subways, parks, restaurants, and in our schools. That is a strange way to improve public safety or aid law enforcement in doing their jobs.
Now, there are things we can actually do to improve public safety.
Mr. Speaker, forgive me. I know Mr. Fry is in his second term, not in his first term. He is a valuable member of our committee.
Mr. Speaker, the last gentleman to speak said he never wanted to hear about defunding the police again, and I agree with him completely.
The problem is, he is about to hear about it because DOGE is defunding the police as we speak and, unfortunately, with your cooperation and your passivity, they are getting away with it.
Now, this self-anointed fourth branch of government, DOGE, which I think is getting run out of town right now because of its rank incompetence and lawless assaults on the privacy data of hundreds of millions of Americans and its unlawful summary mass firings of professional civil servants like air traffic controllers, food and drug inspectors, pediatric cancer researchers in my district, Forest Service, and firefighters. They are getting run out of town now. I don't hear a lot about Elon Musk. He has lost some elections for my friends across the aisle, so they are trying to let him sink into anonymity, but he has done his damage.
Over at the Department of Justice--and I have got to correct myself. I was saying that his employee, who I can identify now as Tarak Makecha, was responsible for slashing more than $500 million in public safety, local law enforcement, and victim assistance organizations across the country. Although that was technically correct, more than $500 million, it really understates the gravity of this offense against public safety. It was $811 million in grants that were terminated.
Now, understand what a grievous assault this is on our system of government. Congress passes budgets. They are initiated here in the House of Representatives. We voted to appropriate that money to the Department of Justice. The House voted for it. The Senate voted for it. It was signed into law by the President. The money went to the Department of Justice. It was programmed for those purposes. $811 million was awarded to each of those grantees and now we have got some reportage explaining what happened. It all came down to this one guy, Tarak Makecha, working for Elon Musk.
Did anybody elect him around here? Did anybody confirm him for any job? I don't think so.
He wrote some memos under the authority of dusk, which now I think is an invalidated, discredited authority if you read the opinion from the Federal District Court of Northern California on Friday night because they remember how the Constitution works.
We don't have a fourth branch of government called Elon Musk or Tarak Makecha. This guy wrote memos to the deputy attorney general demanding that all of these grants to law enforcement and public safety and victim assistance groups across the country in our districts be deleted. He wouldn't rest until they were deleted. They were deleted so he said he could report it to his superiors and to the White House.
Now, why aren't we using this valuable time not just to pass a mere reporting bill, which is fine, but how about an action bill?
How about a bill that restores hundreds of millions of dollars to actually promoting criminal law enforcement, public safety, aid to victims of rape and sexual assaults, organizations fighting child sexual abuse across the country? Why don't we do that?
Why don't we just pierce the fog of rhetoric a little bit and get down to something that is actually happening?
Then we can follow that up with what I think would be a significant symbolic statement, as Mrs. McBath urges us to do, let's put up the plaque to honor the officers who defended us against the rampage of January 6.
The gentleman from North Carolina, I think, tried to change the subject as if one mob rampage justifies another. I am against all mob violence. I am against all mob rampages. I don't feel like I have to speak out against one of them. If I can't speak out against the one that comes to our House, who will trust me to speak out against mob violence anywhere else? I denounce it wherever it takes place, under whatever guise, under any ideological auspice at all. I denounce mob violence.
I challenge my friend from North Carolina to find me one Democratic official who incited violent insurrection or incited mob violence on that day because I will tell you, this Chamber voted to impeach that President who incited mob violence against us in a sweeping bipartisan vote, Democrats and Republicans, together. Then the Senate voted 57-43.
The President, in his inimitable way, was able to beat the constitutional odds, but nonetheless, commanding majorities of both Chambers found that he incited violence against us in order to overthrow a Presidential election he had lost by more than 7 million votes.
Find me a Democratic Governor who pardoned any of the mobsters or the violent insurrectionists or people burning down buildings. Can you find me one? Can you find me any Democratic politician who wants to honor those people? Can you?
I can show you a United States President today who seems to think that it was the rioters and insurrectionists who deserve honor and praise.
Don't give me any false analogy or false comparison. We denounce violence everywhere.
Will our colleagues have the courage to ask for the plaque honoring the police officers who opposed the violence that came right into this Chamber? I can hear them chanting: ``Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence.''
Remember him? He was the Republican Vice President of the United States, and they chased him out. Now, they would like his memory to go down that Orwellian black hole so nobody remembers him or so nobody remembers the things the Republicans said. They called it terrorism at the time, but now it is inconvenient.
Donald Trump doesn't want police officers being honored for the work they did defending our Constitution, our democracy, our Capitol, and the Members of Congress, including people who sit on that side of the aisle as well as the Members who sit on this side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, a little over 1 year ago, four law enforcement heroes in North Carolina lost their lives protecting the public from an armed and highly dangerous felon. They showed up to work that morning like it was just another day. They gave the ultimate sacrifice for the Charlotte, North Carolina, community.
However, instead of acknowledging the danger that police officers willingly put themselves in every day and standing behind our men and women in blue, some radical progressives on the left would rather defund the police or even abolish them entirely, but not me and not my colleagues that are here with me today.
This National Police Week, I am honored to stand behind our law enforcement as they keep our communities safe. I am especially proud to stand
As I read this bill, one disturbing fact caught my eye: In 2022, 30 percent of the murders of police officers were unprovoked ambushes. This is unconscionable. As a pastor at First Baptist Church, Charlotte, North Carolina, I actually witnessed and saw families suffering and hurting of police officers that were murdered in just this way.
Police officers are community leaders and public servants who deserve the respect of the country. Instead, it seems coldblooded killers have been deliberately targeting our law enforcement heroes, and it is now more important than ever not to just talk but to act.
I am confident that Congressman Moore's bill will accomplish just that. Our Nation's police are under constant attack and they need Congress' steadfast support. This bill will shine a light on the threats that law enforcement face, threats that have steeply risen in number ever since the left began its dangerous defund the police rhetoric, and it will begin the process of expanding the resources available to law enforcement officials.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to join me in supporting the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, and let's ensure that our Nation's police forces know that we have their back.
Mr. Speaker, local law enforcement officers bravely and tirelessly work to protect our communities day in and day out. The situations that these law enforcement officers encounter put them, as we all know, at an increased risk of developing mental health disorders, including PTSD, depression, and anxiety.
This Police Week, I thank the sponsors of the bill, my colleagues across the aisle, for introducing H.R. 2240, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act.
I did offer an amendment to require that the Department of Justice include recommendations on improving training programs for domestic violence cases because far too often our local law enforcement officers are at the front lines of response to domestic violence cases. These situations not only need to be handled carefully with specialized training, but they also take a toll on officers' own well-being.
While this amendment was not made in order, I rise today because I believe it is essential to address the issues of domestic violence and the mental health of our officers in a bipartisan manner.
I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle in addressing this critical need and continuing to address these issues together.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will just spend a little bit more time speaking. Not only are my colleagues apparently letting DOGE get away with terminating the Department of Justice grant programs, but they are also attempting to rob Federal law enforcement officers of their hard-earned retirement benefits.
I will put on the Record that, unlike other Federal employees, Federal law enforcement officers are eligible to retire voluntarily after serving our country for at least 20 years and reaching the age of 50 or after 25 years of service at any age.
Now, the Special Retirement Supplement for Federal officers provides roughly one-third of a Federal officer's retirement benefits, bridging the financial gap between when an officer chooses to retire and when they become eligible for Social Security at age 62.
This Special Retirement Supplement ensures financial stability for those who have dedicated their lives and their careers to protecting this country, but our Republican colleagues, their reconciliation bill, would limit the supplement only to those who reach the mandatory retirement age of 57 no matter how many years they have served.
It would also apply not just to new hires but to all officers, to those who clearly earned the ability to claim this benefit and didn't sign up for this new rule. The moment Trump signs the reconciliation bill into law, any officer that retires before reaching the age of 57 would lose one-third of their retirement benefits, making voluntary retirement untenable for every Federal law enforcement officer who is at or near retirement.
Cutting the supplement would have an immediate effect on the retention of overburdened, increasingly demoralized officers across the Federal Government, creating an overwhelming incentive for tens of thousands of eligible officers to retire before they plan to, before this change becomes law.
In closing, it is National Police Week, and we are honoring the brave men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every single day to protect our communities and this Nation.
I was proud to vote ``yes'' on this resolution on the House floor yesterday to express our Nation's gratitude to our law enforcement. I would also like to thank all the families for their courage and strength because families of law enforcement are part of this, too.
As ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, I hear directly from families and officers from all across the country about the reforms that they desperately need. I will continue to champion bills that provide tools that help our law enforcement officers and keep them all safe because they deserve that.
We stand with all of our officers around the country, whether they be Federal, State, or local, and we thank them for their service.
Though I really wish that we were doing so much more this week to make our officers safe or to invest in resources for their well-being, I will support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the very same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no shortage of us who are attorneys or at least former attorneys on this floor. One of the things, of course, is when we hear information, we want to run it down and sometimes correct the record.
My good friend from Maryland pointed out about some sort of cuts from DOGE that would affect law enforcement, so I immediately wanted to look and see what he possibly could be talking about. I think what the gentleman was talking about were a couple things.
One was getting rid of a $250,000 grant, funding for jailed trans inmates working with incarcerated transgender individuals providing gender-affirming care to include housing in gender-appropriate facilities. Actually, I think that is a pretty good thing to get rid of so we can put more resources in to helping law enforcement.
Next is $2 million for some sort of national listening session for, as I understand it, criminal defendants.
Then we have $695,000 for a parallel convergent mixed-methods case study. I don't even know what that means, a parallel convergent mixed- methods case study research designed to assess the efficacy of police departments' LGBTQ liaison services.
I think one of the things with this reconciliation bill and with the actions of President Trump is to get rid of the waste and to put the resources to helping our men and women in law enforcement.
During National Police Week, as we are honoring police, while we have a few differences of opinion and may disagree on a few other matters, I am at least comforted by the fact of knowing that we all, on both sides of the aisle, do support law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman stirred me out of my stupor there by coming back with a couple of grants that apparently were eliminated. I will take his word for it. If I did the internal math correctly, that was less than $2 million out of $811 million cut in awards that were made by the Department of Justice to local law enforcement citizen community safety groups, and so on across the country.
Now, apparently there are certain grants that the gentleman doesn't want ever to go out. For example, I take it the gentleman doesn't think very highly of anything having to do with citizens who are transgender. We differ about that, apparently, because I think everybody has civil rights and everybody's voice needs to be heard.
In any event, that needs to be brought up in the Appropriations Committee where we can vote on it democratically. That should not be up to one of Elon Musk's midnight riders, a computer hacker who comes in and simply decides to wipe out all of the handiwork of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate signed into law by the President and then awarded by the Department of Justice.
We do not have a fourth branch of government here, which is what the Federal District Court, Northern California, was saying on Friday.
Are my colleagues aware that there have been more than 250 cases brought against the reign of lawlessness and authoritarianism brought down on America in the first 5 months of the Trump administration? There are 156 preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders right now.
A couple of hours ago, the Supreme Court heard the case about Donald Trump in an executive order trying to destroy birthright citizenship in America. Every sixth grader in America knows that if you are born in America, you are a citizen of the United States. They tried to reverse that. That got struck down by four courts.
They call them radical left rogue judges. Well, two of the ones who struck it down were Democratic appointees, one by President Obama and one by President Biden. The other two were Republican appointees, one appointed by President Bush and one appointed by President Reagan, who said that in his four decades on the bench he had never seen a more unconstitutional law than that one. He had never seen an easier case than that one.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand what is wrong with that. You just have to know how to read. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . . `'
These people are finger painting all over the Constitution. They are usurping the rule of law as adopted by the Congress of the United States. They are creating new branches of government. I am glad that they finally ran Elon Musk out of town because he was no longer politically useful to him, but in the meantime we have to deal with the wreckage.
If he, by accident, did something the gentleman agrees with, bully for him, great, but in the meantime, he has undone the will of Congress. He has nullified and canceled hundreds of millions of dollars going out to public safety and criminal law enforcement across America.
Let's get back to the rule of law. Let's get back to law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said earlier, while I do really support this legislation, I also call on my colleagues to stand with law enforcement by restoring these critical grants commemorating the bravery of our officers on January 6 and every day, protecting their pay, protecting their benefits, and all that the Federal officers have earned over the course of the time that they have served their communities and this country and ensuring that every Federal agency can continue to provide critical assistance to our State and local law enforcement.
We can do a lot better. They deserve so much better from us. Let's please work to do better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is an incredibly commonsense and bipartisan piece of legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Law enforcement has been demonized and attacked. They have been defunded in leftwing jurisdictions many years ago.
I hope that that movement is forever in the dustbin of our history because we owe it to law enforcement to support them in any number of ways that we can as policymakers. One of the easiest ways, in my mind, is this bill. Data is incredibly important, Mr. Speaker. You know this firsthand. Data is incredibly important. Understanding these attacks on our law enforcement, how it is affected by the officer, how these things occur, where they occur, these data points are incredibly important to understand and protect our law enforcement.
Last year, I think all of the Republicans and the vast majority of my Democratic colleagues supported this very measure. I hope that this year even more Democrats will support it and that it will be signed into law because this data is incredibly important to make sure that we protect our law enforcement officers. This is just a small way that we can advance that initiative forward.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order:
Passage of H.R. 2255; and,
Passage of H.R. 2240.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a 5-minute vote.
Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage 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 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 234, nays 182, not voting 17, as follows:
Messrs. SCOTT of Virginia and BOYLE of Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. KAPTUR and Mr. SUOZZI changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage 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, 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.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 403, nays 11, not voting 19, as follows:
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, due to unanticipated personal reasons, I missed an important vote on H.R. 2240 and H.R. 2255. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 130, and YEA on Roll Call No. 131.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Midshipman Bridgett Sundheim. A Delano High School graduate, Bridget is graduating from George Washington University today.
The Sundheim family is in town for the celebration. They are somewhere up there. They are a generous, upstanding family from Delano. My wife, Jackie, and I have known them for years.
During high school, Bridget launched Best Buddies, a student organization that continues transforming the lives of students with special needs. She was also a member of the Civil Air Patrol, which led Bridget to join the Navy ROTC at GW.
Last summer, Bridget served on the USS McCampbell in Japan, earning a coveted Blue Chip from the ship's captain and guaranteeing a spot on the ship after being commissioned as a surface warfare officer. She plans to return to the USS McCampbell later this year.
Driven, kind, and unwaveringly patriotic, Bridget holds herself to the highest standards.
I wish Bridget all the best and thank her for her service and dedication to our country. She makes Delano and the State of Minnesota proud.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that Congress and only Congress has the power of the purse. Yet, Donald Trump and Elon Musk have unlawfully impounded billions of dollars of congressionally approved funds. They have illegally slashed funding for veterans, food for hungry babies, and purported to terminate entire agencies created by Congress. This is not consistent with the Constitution or with democracy.
Trump and Musk are asserting the powers of dictatorship. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have refused to enforce the law or the Constitution when it comes to this administration.
That is why I, along with Representatives Liccardo and Vindman, introduced the Protect Our Constitution and Communities Act, or POCCA.
POCCA affirms the separation of budgetary powers and creates a private right action for individuals, States, and local jurisdictions that have been harmed by the administration's repeated violations of the ICA.
POCCA would also hold accountable any public official with decisionmaking authority who knowingly and intentionally violates the ICA, such as Elon Musk.
It is time to stand up for the rule of law and to put the power of the purse back where it belongs, in the hands of Congress.
This National Police Week, I urge my colleagues to consider supporting this important law enforcement priority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the selfless acts of service done by Diana Lawrence and the Troop Box Ministry to bless our Nation's servicemembers.
It all began nearly a quarter century ago in the garage of the Lawrences' residence in Hamersville, Ohio. One of Diana's family members was serving faithfully in the military in Afghanistan, and she sent a care package overseas to show support.
An idea was born, and soon, students from Milford Schools and volunteers from all over town joined Diana's mission. Her operation expanded to two sheds in her backyard, where volunteers collected the names and addresses of troops, assembled donated items in the care packages, and sent them on their way overseas. Each box included a Gideon Bible, a deck of cards, as well as toothbrushes, shampoo, personal hygiene tools, and snacks.
Troop Box Ministry started receiving special requests from soldiers, and soon, they were knitting wool helmet liners and collecting cans of spray for the bottoms of combat boots to give servicemembers a better grip on slippery terrain.
Over the next 23 years, Diana and her volunteers sent an estimated 10,000 packages to American troops serving all over the Middle East and beyond. As a result, Diana and her family-style operation found their way into southern Ohio's history books as service leaders with a purpose.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Nihaal Grandhi, a brother, son, and student from Loudon County who tragically passed away in an accident over the weekend.
At just 19 years old, Nihaal was a proud graduate of Rock Ridge High School and a freshman at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business. He was known for his joyful smile and ability to inspire a sense of community wherever he went.
As a volleyball team captain and a STEM competition coach, Nihaal was always attuned to the needs of those he led. Whether mentoring a teammate
Above all, he was a man of deep principles and kindness.
Mr. Speaker, I and so many in my community are sending prayers to his family and friends and all who had the privilege to know him.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of our law enforcement community in Indiana's Sixth District and across our Hoosier State.
Police Week is a time for all of us to recognize and honor those serving our communities and, most especially, those who have given their lives in the line of duty.
This week, I was joined by our Johnson County Sheriff Duane Burgess. Duane and his deputies work tirelessly to keep Johnson County a safe community in which to live, work, and to raise a family.
I thank Sheriff Burgess for his many years of dedicated service.
During my short time in Congress, I have prioritized issues, including protecting qualified immunity and officer safety and wellness. I remain committed to providing support for our law enforcement officers who do such vital work to protect our communities.
Mr. Speaker, today during National Police Week, I rise to commend the bravery of law enforcement officers across Virginia's Seventh Congressional District.
In early April, tragedy struck Spotsylvania County when a mass shooting left three people sadly deceased and three others injured. Law enforcement officers from Spotsylvania County and the city of Fredericksburg swiftly answered the call and put their lives on the line to protect their neighbors.
As a former prosecutor and Army veteran, I understand the mission that our men and women in uniform take on every day. They serve knowing that their work is bigger than any one person. It is about protecting our communities and upholding the law for our families and loved ones.
Mr. Speaker, today, I thank the brave law enforcement officers of Spotsylvania and Fredericksburg and all officers serving across the 11 counties of Virginia's Seventh Congressional District. Their service and sacrifice is deeply valued.
Mr. Speaker, so far, President Trump has signed over 151 executive orders. The Congress has only sent him five bills to sign into law, a historically low number. That is on us.
We are legislators, and we have a constitutional duty to legislate. Unless codified into law, President Trump's historic government reforms are in jeopardy. Congress must get to work locking in these victories for good. We can't afford for future administrations to erase them with the stroke of a pen.
Republican Members of Congress are quick to praise President Trump's executive orders, but we are very slow to codify them. It doesn't matter if we have to vote 7 days a week. We need to be mass-producing bills that codify the same executive orders that have been keeping our constituents safe.
Congress has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to achieve victories that Republicans have always talked about.
Mr. Speaker, I was a history teacher, and I know that we have to be documenting this moment. When we look back, I don't want anyone to say that we didn't know what was happening.
Trump adviser Stephen Miller and perhaps the most joyless man in America recently said that Trump is actively looking at suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
I am sorry. What? What?
Habeas corpus is the right we all have to challenge in court if we are detained and locked up. Without it, it means that any of us can be locked up with no cause. It can only be suspended by Congress, by us.
Americans, please hear me: Who are we? Who are we if we let Trump abandon our core principle that no one in this country will be imprisoned unlawfully? This is about liberty, and there is nothing more important than our liberty.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bryce Michael for his heroic actions and dedication to helping our Nation's students.
Bryce is a bus driver for the Columbia School District in Brooklyn, Michigan, and was driving students home when a kindergarten student placed a quarter in her mouth and began to choke.
Bryce immediately sprang into action, assisted the student so that she was able to cough up the quarter and was no longer under duress.
I thank Bryce for his quick actions and calm demeanor, as well as his commitment to caring for the students on his bus every day. His dedication and passion for his job is evidenced through his daily actions.
Bryce is a hero, and his many contributions to our community are worthy of recognition.
Mr. Speaker, I am again coming to the House floor, the people's Chamber, to say: The emergency isn't coming. It is now.
Donald Trump's advisers are threatening to suspend habeas corpus.
Habeas corpus is the constitutional right that protects Americans from being detained without charge, without trial, and without due process.
This isn't some obscure legal debate. Habeas corpus is the bedrock of our freedom. Strip it away, and you strip away the very foundation of our Nation.
Let me be clear: This is authoritarianism in plain sight, a direct assault on the rule of law and on the American people.
To my colleagues in this Chamber: We are not just Representatives of our districts. We are the frontline defenders of our Republic. We cannot merely just watch history unfold, we must shape it.
It is on each and every one of us to tell the truth. Donald Trump is coming for our freedoms. It is on each and every one of us to stand up, speak out, and refuse to be silenced.
My colleagues shouldn't wait for the history books to decide which side they were on. Decide right now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize WDAY Chief Meteorologist John Wheeler.
On May 16, tomorrow, John will deliver his final forecast, sunsetting a memorable 40-year broadcasting career.
John joined WDAY in 1985 as the station's first on-air meteorologist. Since then, he has weathered it all, guiding North Dakotans through blizzards, floods, and drought, always with steady insight, clear instructions, and a partly sunny optimism, even on the coldest North Dakota days.
Let's be honest: Being a weatherman in North Dakota, in my State, is no easy task. While our weather is reliably unpredictable, John was always a high-pressure system of calm and confidence, helping farmers, families, and everyone in between plan for a smooth day ahead.
As John enters retirement, the forecast looks great. I see clear skies ahead, wind at his back, and hopefully an extended period of sunshine.
I thank John for helping us weather so many storms, and I wish him the very best in this new season of life.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the brazen firing of our respected Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden.
Last week, she was ruthlessly fired by President Donald J. Trump. Dr. Hayden is a model public servant who led the Library with dignity and professionalism for 8 years.
Dr. Hayden was the first professional librarian to oversee our Nation's largest Library, and, yes, I still have too many overdue Library books.
I worked with Dr. Hayden during the dark days of COVID-19 to help Michigan, to preserve the history, and to assist veterans. Her premature dismissal, Mr. Speaker, is a true loss to the institution and the millions of people it serves, including my colleagues, who rely on the Library's nonpartisan resources to research and to draft legislation.
Politicizing this institution is not right, and we must give Dr. Hayden the recognition she deserves, a true leader for this country.
Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, May 18, marks 7 years since the heartbreaking and evil tragedy struck the town of Santa Fe, Texas.
Mr. Speaker, it has been 7 years since 10 innocent lives were stolen in a senseless act of violence that shook our community to its very core. Lives were cut short. Families changed forever.
I will never forget getting that phone call. I remember walking the school halls a week after the shooting and seeing the pain etched on the faces of the parents, the students, and the first responders.
I attended the funerals. I wept with the families. Those were our kids. These were our teachers. These were our neighbors.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, in the face of that darkness, something else stood out: the unshakeable spirit of Santa Fe, Texas. That Texas town showed the world what it means to be strong, what it means to come together, and what it means to rise above any occasion.
Santa Fe is resilient, Mr. Speaker. Santa Fe is faithful, and Santa Fe is still standing. May we never forget the lives we lost, and may we always honor them by standing for life, for truth, and for the communities that we are blessed to represent.
God bless Santa Fe. God bless Texas, and may God continue to bless these United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Huntington's Disease Awareness Month and to honor the courage and strength of families across the Nation who face lifelong hardships due to Huntington's disease, including one of my own constituents, Rachel Reising, and her family.
Rachel has reached out to me and asked that I join her in raising awareness for this disease. Huntington's disease is a rare genetic disorder that slowly damages the brain over time. There is currently no cure. However, there is hope, thanks to Medicaid research advancements and investments.
Rachel recently reached out to me and shared her brave story as she grieves the loss of her father, whom she tragically lost to Huntington's. She has made it her life's mission to advocate for proper care of those affected and to eventually find a cure.
In honor of Rachel's family and the tens of thousands of others who face Huntington's disease, I urge my colleagues to protect research and funding to help those living with this rare disease.
Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate National Police Week this week and ALS Awareness Month in May, I take time to recognize Monica Martinez.
I know that her niece, Annie Martinez, is here in the Chamber, and Annie is a staffer here on Capitol Hill. Annie is from New Braunfels.
Monica served faithfully with the Comal County Sheriff's Office for nearly a quarter of a century. I have become very close with the great public servants of Comal County in the sheriff's office and the police department. They are great people.
Tragically, in 2023, Monica's career was cut short after she was diagnosed with Bulbar Onset ALS.
She is a cornerstone of her community and a beacon of inspiration for the entire family.
We are indebted to her service to Comal County, and we honor her as she faces this next challenge against this terrible disease.
As a cancer survivor, I wish her well, and we will be praying for her constantly.
I thank Monica for her steadfast commitment to Texas. She is in the thoughts and prayers of me, the people of Comal County, and her family.
Mr. Speaker, one of the latest targets of President Trump's vicious cuts is AmeriCorps, a program that engages 200,000 Americans every year in community service.
In Pennsylvania, AmeriCorps supports 1,000 service sites, more than 10,000 teachers in the Philadelphia region, and various food pantries in the Lehigh Valley. However, with no justification, Musk and DOGE laid off 85 percent of AmeriCorps' staff and unconstitutionally froze more than $400 million.
Millions of Americans are losing access to services they rely upon: veterans receiving mental health treatment, children enrolled in public schools, homebound seniors in need of assistance and companionship.
AmeriCorps was born under President Bush and codified under President Clinton. Its mission: to improve lives and strengthen communities through the service of dedicated volunteers.
It has long enjoyed bipartisan support, and for good reason, because it is one of the best ways our government can do good things for real people right here at home.
To cut AmeriCorps is to deprive Americans. The Trump administration does not care. Their goal is to serve the rich while forsaking the poor.
Mr. Speaker, on May 10, 2025, the Fourteenth Annual Footsteps in the Sand Kidney Walk took place in Cocoa Beach.
This event this year raised $22,000 for kidney patients in need.
Today, I rise to honor the memory of those individuals whose lives were tragically cut short and to recognize the courage of their family members who gave the gift of life on their behalf: Chase Agudelo, Seth Anthony Beyrooti, Michael Robert Brown, Shawn Carpenter, Jose Collins, Linda Marie Couch, Giovanni Cruz, Brooke Dawkins, Andrew Dorsey, Blake Eden, ``CJ'' Jordan-Michael Grey, Melissa Houser, Kory Humphrey, Jacob Monroe, Tribhawan Anand Persaud, Dylan Rowe, Decobe Esters, Deja Thompson, Donald Walker, Nathan Walker, and Geoffrey Wasden.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to honor the bravery, sacrifice, and service of law enforcement officers across California's 25th District and our Nation.
I thank every officer in my district, from city departments to county and Federal agencies, for putting their lives on the line to keep our communities safe.
On May 2, the 17th Annual Imperial Valley Law Enforcement Memorial Ceremony brought our community together in El Centro to remember the 49 officers who made the ultimate sacrifice in their service to the Imperial Valley.
This week, the Riverside County Sheriff's Office held its own memorial, recommitting to their mission to protect and serve. This is a sad reminder that each day police and first responders make the ultimate sacrifice for their communities.
That is why Congress needs to do more to support officers and their surviving families. We must pass my legislation, the Heroes Lesley Zerebny and Gilbert Vega First Responders Survivors Support Act, which increases and improves access to financial and educational benefits for the families of the fallen or disabled officers.
Let's honor our officers not just with words but with meaningful actions that support their well-being and their family's well-being and safety.
Mr. Speaker, in 2023, dozens of Members of Congress beat the S&P 500, while only 40 percent of Wall Street pros were able to pull that off. I think that has got Americans asking: What does Congress have, a secret strategy?
The sad part is, they did. It is called insider trading.
Members of this body are so good at investing that apps like the Pelosi Tracker exist as a stock tip machine. It has given investors a 45 percent return in the last year alone simply by copying the former Speaker's stock trades.
Now, this isn't a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats together have made over $200 million in the market last year, while Americans got hammered by inflation and rising interest rates.
Mr. Speaker, I am a farm kid from Iowa. When I came to Washington, I didn't have many stocks to sell, but I sold them all because it is the right thing to do. It is ridiculous that anyone would commit insider trading while being here.
President Trump agrees and Speaker Johnson agrees that now is the time to pass my bill, the No Corruption in Government Act to finally ban Members of Congress from stock trading, stop government pay raises, and extend the lobbying ban.
Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill and get it to the President's desk. Let's give the American people back their faith in democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise for the 10th time to call on the Trump administration to restore funding for lifesaving food aid for malnourished children across the globe.
Mr. Speaker, $50 is all it takes to save the life of a child. Edesia Nutrition in Rhode Island makes a lifesaving paste called Plumpy'Nut that for just 30 cents a packet over 8 weeks can save the life of a child suffering from malnutrition. That is $50, 30 cents a packet, one packet a day. $50 over 8 weeks and you can save a life.
This product was shipped to millions of children around the world before the Trump administration cut off funding.
Now, Secretary Rubio and Elon Musk have both said that this funding will be restored, but they have yet to actually do it.
Once again, I am calling, along with many of my colleagues, for this funding to be restored. The administration needs to live up to its word. The lives of children depend on it.
Mr. Speaker, this week, the Energy and Commerce Committee finally attacked fraud, waste, and abuse in the Medicaid system.
I think every American knows that when government runs a program, there is fraud, waste, and abuse, and that is exactly what the Committee dealt with.
For instance, 1 million people have committed fraud against the Medicaid system by being enrolled in two States. My colleagues across the aisle think it is a bad idea to eliminate that fraud, waste, and abuse because they all voted against it.
This chart shows what actually happens when you eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse, and the Republicans increase spending in Medicaid by 25 percent over the next 10 years for the people who really need it: the pregnant women, the children, the disabled, the blind, the elderly, and we did it eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to honor the courage, sacrifice, and unwavering service of our law enforcement officers.
In communities I represent across northwest Ohio, I have stood beside the families of heroes like Officer Anthony Dia and Officer Brandon Stalker who gave their lives protecting Toledo's citizenry.
I have witnessed the strength of mothers like Larraine Dressel, who lost her son, Detective Keith Dressel, in the line of duty. Now, I have seen that same strength in his son, Noah, who wears the badge in his father's honor.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to honor these heroes not just in words but in deed. I have recently introduced a bipartisan Law Enforcement Training for Mental Health Crisis Response Act. It will give our officers the tools they need to safely respond to behavioral health crises. Our officers are not just enforcers of the law, they are often the first to meet people in their most broken state.
They deserve training that protects both the public and themselves. Our responsibility is to ensure that no officer's sacrifice is forgotten. Let us stand together always for those who serve and for those who, in blue, gave the ultimate sacrifice to protect our northwest Ohio communities. Salute
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to honor the courage, sacrifice, and steadfast commitment of our law enforcement officers. Those across the nation and especially those serving across NW Ohio.
Each day, these brave men and women answer the call, often putting their lives on the line to protect our families, neighborhoods, and freedoms.
We owe them more than thanks.
That's why I've worked hard to bring meaningful support to those who wear the badge in every county of the eight I represent. In Defiance County, nearly $290,000 in funding helped hire a new school resource officer, equip the police with body-worn cameras, and strengthen the local 911 center and fire and rescue divisions.
In Erie County, over $1.3 Million was directed to sheriff's operations, victim services, local police departments, and enhanced school security across multiple districts.
Fulton County departments, from Archbold to Wauseon, received over $1.3 Million to fund school safety, body-worn cameras, and fire and EMS support.
Lucas County's first responders benefited from major investments like $2 Million for Toledo's Community-Based Violence Intervention grant, and over $76 Million in ARPA funding for police and fire recruitment, ShotSpotter technology, and the Real-Time Crime Center. From Oregon's rebuilt K-9 unit to Sylvania Township's upgraded equipment and Toledo's forensic crime lab, these resources are making a real difference on the ground.
In Ottawa County where we had previously funded construction of the largest Customs and Border Patrol facility on the entire northern border, police departments received hundreds of thousands in funding for police, fire, EMS, and school safety upgrades. And the Ottawa County Court and Prosecutor's Office also secured over $450,000 in federal justice grants to enhance public safety and reduce recidivism.
In Sandusky County, law enforcement agencies in Fremont, Gibsonburg, and Woodville received body-worn cameras and equipment. Sandusky County EMS and school districts received critical safety upgrades as well.
Williams County's departments secured nearly $400,000 for retention incentives, body cameras, and juvenile court services to improve both public safety and the administration of justice.
Northern Wood County also benefited as school districts from Rossford to Eastwood and North Baltimore gained enhanced security infrastructure. These improvements keep both students and officers safe.
These investments reflect a simple truth: If we ask law enforcement to meet the evolving demands of public safety, we must give them the tools, training, and support to succeed.
Let us remember those we've lost in the line of duty and recommit to building a future where every officer returns home.
Your courage does not go unnoticed. Your service is deeply appreciated. May you be blessed in your patriotic service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to recognize the life and service of Deputy Sheriff Bradley J. Reckling.
Deputy Reckling served faithfully for 9 years with the Oakland County Sheriff's Office. He was from Michigan's Ninth District.
Sadly, Deputy Reckling was killed in the line of duty on June 22, 2024. He was only 29 years old. When he was killed, he was a proud husband and father to three beautiful daughters, with a fourth one on the way.
As we mark National Police Week, we pause to honor the courage of those who wear the badge, the ones who run toward danger, and far too often those who pay the ultimate sacrifice like Deputy Reckling.
Every day, brave men and women put on their uniform and go to work and they know they may not come home. We owe these people a lot more than just a thank you. We owe them respect, admiration, and our unwavering support.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to do the same and to honor the life of Deputy Sheriff Brad Reckling. May we always appreciate the men and women in blue.
Mr. Speaker, this is National Police Week when we honor the brave men and women who serve and protect us every day, but it is also a good reminder that they deserve our thanks every day. We also need to thank the spouses and the children of our law enforcement who deal with the risk of their loved ones who may not come home.
Finally, we remember the family members who made the ultimate sacrifice for our safety. Serving in the people's House means we support law enforcement. I am proud to have secured funding for police training and safety.
From Rockford to the Quad Cities, Peoria to Bloomington-Normal, our officers go above and beyond every day to keep us safe, many days without the support that they need to deal with the stress.
That is why I am so proud of the Invest to Protect Act, my bipartisan legislation that gives small and midsized police departments the funding that they need for training, recruitment, and mental health resources.
Mr. Speaker, happy National Police Week. My hope is that everyone wearing a badge right now stays protected, safe, and feels their Nation's thanks.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to offer my sincerest congratulations to the 2025 Masters champion, Rory McIlroy.
Since 1934, amidst blooming azaleas, towering pines, and flowering dogwoods, the first full week of April brings the world's greatest golfers to my hometown of Augusta, Georgia, to experience sport's most unique and rewarding challenge: the Masters golf tournament, the first major of the year.
As golf fans know, the iconic green jacket never comes easily, but for Rory McIlroy, his years-long quest for glory at Augusta was far more than just a victory. In clinching the green jacket, Rory snapped an 11-year major championship drought and completed the long-awaited career grand slam, joining just five other prestigious players in doing so. Augusta made history as one of the greatest moments in golf.
Mr. Speaker, Rory made a comment at the trophy presentation that I think exemplifies this country. He said to his daughter, Poppy, ``Never give up on your dreams. Keep coming back, keep working hard. If you put your mind to it, you can do anything.'' What an example to the next generation of athletes, leaders, and to the American people.
Congratulations, Rory. It is championship week again in the world of golf, and we are pulling for him to achieve the season's grand slam now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituent Pranoy, a remarkable young adult and lifelong learner from Barrington, Rhode Island.
Pranoy is driven by his dream of attending college, but that dream is at great risk. It can only be realized if he receives support. Pranoy lives with Down syndrome and uses an adaptive communication device with specialized software to communicate, paid for by Medicaid.
Yet, Republicans are trying to ram through their disastrous budget poised to gut Medicaid and threaten healthcare for one in four Rhode Islanders.
I recently met with Pranoy. He said simply: ``I am only getting started.'' That sentence sums it up. It is what keeps his family and myself up at night. These Republican Medicaid cuts would hinder Pranoy's potential.
I am standing here today because I stand with Pranoy. I stand with the
Ms. McDONALD RIVET. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a mid-Michigan hero, Trooper Joel E. Popp of the Michigan State Police.
Trooper Popp passed away in the line of duty last year, and this tragedy touched every corner of our community. Family, friends, neighbors, the men and women who served with him, and strangers gathered together to honor his service and his sacrifice.
Joel was an avid outdoorsman. When off duty, he could be found hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, or golfing. He loved being a husband and a father.
Trooper Popp has been added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Wall here in D.C., where he joins other American heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice.
This National Police Week, I thank Trooper Popp and all the other brave men and women who put their lives on the line to protect and serve our Nation and its people. We owe them a profound debt of gratitude.
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Merit Caucus, I am proud to recognize a Utah educator who embodies excellence, Ms. Lacey Anderson.
Lacey is a special education teacher who refused to accept low expectations for neurodivergent students. Instead, she founded Autism Solutions Academy in West Jordan, Utah, becoming a board-certified behavior analyst and building a school that meets the needs of kids where they are.
Her student-first approach provides real options for parents of special needs children. By customizing lesson plans and blending teaching, she makes sure that every student, regardless of ability, has the path to succeed.
During a recent visit, I met Sofia, a student who once was nonverbal and withdrawn. Today, she is reading, writing, and thriving because of a teacher who believed in her.
That is what real leadership looks like. That is merit in action. When we raise the bar, our kids rise to meet it. Every child in America deserves the same chance.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to honor the brave men and women who put their lives on the line each day to keep us safe.
I rise to honor Lieutenant Michael Hoosock of the Onondaga County Sheriff's Office and Syracuse Police Officer Michael Jensen, who were ambushed and killed on a quiet street in Salina, New York, just 13 months ago. I also honor Oswego County Sheriff's Deputy Cailee Campbell, who was killed in a motor vehicle accident in my old State senate district last fall. Their names now join others from central New York and the Mohawk Valley like Syracuse Officer Wallie Howard on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial.
I note briefly that Officer Howard's killer was shamefully released from prison by President Trump at the end of his first term. The Syracuse community, the police department, Officer Howard's family, and the prosecutors who brought this case for justice were all shocked at the decision to release this convicted murderer.
Syracuse and New York-22 will never forget the sacrifices of these men and women regardless of how long their names are up on the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and will always support law enforcement and their families.
I thank Lieutenant Hoosock, Officer Jensen, and Deputy Campbell for their commitment to their community. I rise today to honor their service and to offer my support and condolences to their families and friends. We stand with them, and we grieve with them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the House to highlight my support of Head Start.
I most recently visited an organization in my district called the Unity Council that serves families, parents, seniors, and children, providing them with affordable housing, career opportunities, community engagement and, yes, Head Start programs.
I learned from the Unity Council that President Trump and the administration has stopped funding for the Oakland Head Start program. This means that over 600 children will not have daycare, mental health services, dental care, and basic health screenings all provided by this incredible program.
The President promised, recently said he would not touch the Head Start program. Yet here we are. Nationally, over 800,000 children receive daycare support from Head Start. Cutting Head Start funding and stopping early childhood development is not efficiency. It is not trimming the fat. Cutting programs like Head Start is breaking, literally, the bones of our Nation and of our future.
Mr. Speaker, as we honor Police Week, I rise to take a moment to thank all of our first responders who bravely put their lives on the line every day across New Mexico and to honor all of those who have fallen in the line of duty.
As we honor our heroes, we must honor them not just in words, but in action, because our communities deserve real solutions: funding for law enforcement, behavioral health programs, keeping fentanyl off the streets, and real solutions that keep our communities safe.
That is why I have been working with State police, Tribal law enforcement, county sheriffs, and police departments across New Mexico to invest in technologies and tools to fund fire stations and emergency response, to invest in healthcare providers and behavioral health clinics, working with housing and homeless providers to help our veterans, elders, families, and young people, and to keep our communities safe. We do it by investing not only in the people who serve our communities bravely every day, but by investing in the people of our communities.
Mr. Speaker, during National Police Week, I rise to honor Columbia County Sheriff's Deputy Bernard Roberts. He was a marine, a husband, a father, and a member of the CCSO for 18 years.
I was so honored to see Deputy Roberts' name added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial wall this afternoon.
Bernard is survived by his wife, Fulgencia, and their six children: Jayden, Tristin, Tristina, Adriana, Niya, and Hillary. Speaking with them today, it is clear Deputy Roberts was an exceptional man, a dedicated officer, and a loving father.
He had a playful side. His friends called him Cupcake B. He was also a very serious student, which is a trait that he has passed along to his daughters.
His legacy of service and love endures through his family.
Mr. Speaker, as we honor all of our law enforcement heroes this week, let us especially remember Deputy Bernard Roberts. We are forever grateful for his service, his sacrifice, and his beautiful family.
Mr. Speaker, there is a catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza. It is happening before our eyes.
Tons of food, medicine, water, shelter, and other urgent humanitarian aid remains blocked from entering Gaza by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The World Food Programme and NGOs have been forced to close their programs or are using the last of their dwindling supplies.
For the first time, lab technicians with the American Near East Refugee Aid organization are detecting signs of starvation in the lab work of one-third of all blood and urine samples of their patients in Gaza.
Israeli officers charged with monitoring conditions inside of Gaza have told their commanders that it is on the brink of starvation.
Mr. Speaker, for too long Congress has been complacent and complicit about the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza. We need to speak out and demand the rapid, unimpeded, impartial, neutral, and independent delivery of humanitarian aid today. Tomorrow may be too late.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter additional materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise with my Democratic colleagues, frankly, to call out the dangerous and draconian antiscience agendas of this current administration. Since day one, this administration has unleashed chaos on our national scientific enterprise, undermining our Nation's competitiveness, our health safety, and the dignity of research and how it is conducted. It is coming at a time that will, frankly, move our country in the wrong direction, and it will cost us.
In just over 100 days, we have seen the firing and rehiring of experts, the illegal impounding of congressionally authorized and appropriated research funding, and the future of our STEM student pipeline jeopardized. Frankly, it has created a chilling effect across our scientific research enterprise.
For the science enthusiasts watching at home, allow me to clarify that, yes, we support our national scientific research enterprise, our National Science Foundation, and our National Institute of Standards and Technology.
In this country, we also have the National Institutes of Health. Some of us are old enough to remember when we passed a DARPA for health research, ARPA-H, Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health.
While much of my remarks will be dedicated toward our hard-nosed scientific research funding, I do want to make mention of what it means to have our health sciences under attack right now as well because doctors and researchers, particularly in the medical fields, are feeling extraordinary pain.
These aren't just talking points. This isn't just fear-mongering. This is the cessation of scientific research, health research, special projects dedicated toward combating cancer, pilot projects being suddenly halted. It is a blow to patients. It is a blow to medical researchers and physicians.
My colleagues tonight are going to join me in speaking about the antiscience agenda that is in full swing in the United States of America and what it means. Tonight, I am going to speak about Michigan. I am going to speak about the harm of this chaos and the antiscience agenda that it poses to the incredible State of Michigan.
The State of Michigan is known for its manufacturing prowess. Yes, we have great healthcare institutions as well, but we are known as the place that has put the world on wheels for our best-in-class workforce. We are, of course, also known for the beauty of our Great Lakes. We are known as a place that has the most number of first robotics teams in the Nation. Also, that we are a hotbed and a place that people and businesses come to to expand, to grow, and to tap into our engineering talent.
Mr. Speaker, you can't have a shop floor without research and development. You can't have incredible manufacturing and incredible innovation without scientific research and development.
It is about problem-solving. I know this from my time in the Obama administration. I know this from my time working in a scientific research lab. That innovation takes place on the shop floor and in the heart of Michigan's manufacturing capabilities.
We are so proud of public-private partnerships. We are so proud of how the government can provide seed funding through the National Science Foundation and support for our National Institute of Standards and Technology through the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program.
My friend Mike Coast, the former leader of the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center, Michigan's MEP, and I are overdue for a conversation. He is ringing the alarm bell about what these cuts will do for Michigan and what this means.
From growing up and from my upbringing, I saw this story of what it means to have a strong and vibrant manufacturing economy. It is intertwined with the Nation's scientific research enterprise and appropriated dollars.
I have visited my friends in over 250 unique small businesses, small manufacturers, innovators, entrepreneurs, and training centers. The innovation story is powered by Michigan's incredible workforce, our hardworking men and women, and those large concentrations of engineers that we have. They are from Grand Rapids, Flint, Saginaw, Lansing, and, of course, all over southeast Michigan, from Detroit to Macomb County and throughout Oakland County.
All of this goes hand in hand from the lab to the shop floor, to the classroom, to the tinkering in the garage, or in Michigan--because we do have those cold winters--in our basements. People are innovating, designing, and doing.
I woke up on a Saturday morning to a headline that the National Science Foundation is canceling more than 400 STEM grants. What does it mean for Michigan? What does that mean for our schools that are not fully funded? What does it mean when we are competing on the world playing field?
We need to have these scientists. We need to have these technologists. We need to have engineers and mathematicians. The student pipeline is absolutely essential, Mr. Speaker.
Because of this Trump-Musk antiscience agenda undermining the symbiotic relationship and threatening Michigan's future in advanced manufacturing, environmental protection, and next-generation mobility technologies--news flash, we had 40-plus new factories built and developed in Michigan last year alone--the chaos continues to set us back.
These aren't false threats. They are now a reality. It is blow after blow. It is self-inflicted chaos at a time when we don't need it, when it is not going to work for Michigan and not going to work for this country.
Michigan is a national leader in public university research, with nine public institutions in the great State of Michigan ranked as top- tier universities. They are what we call R1 research universities. We also have R2 universities. They all rank in that top nine.
This also includes Oakland University, which is located in my district and where my parents met, and it is part of my origin story. They have a very robust engineering department that relies on these National Science Foundation grants, basic scientific research, technology readiness 1 through 9.
What does that mean? We need to have basic scientific research. We need to have the scientific method, of course, dictating and governing how we conduct research in the United States of America.
University of Michigan and Michigan State University recently came forward with what it would mean to see these grants and the relationship between our universities and our government shrink.
I will hold this up. In fact, that was also in The Detroit News, that the MSU president has spoken about the partnership between research universities and innovation driven by government. We need these things.
At Wayne State University and Michigan Technological University, it is the same thing. They conduct over 90 percent of the State's academic research, totaling more than $3 billion. We want to compete. We want to be a driver of the moonshot of this century.
Every day, Michiganders reap the benefits of these universities, these small businesses, the entrepreneurs, and the small business innovation research grants. I walk out my door, and people are practically coming up to me, saying that this is where they want to grow and go. The STEM talent is so mission critical to all of us.
Just the three largest research institutions created an economic impact of nearly $24 billion for the State of Michigan. This is personal for us, and this is very real. Our universities are where tomorrow's breakthroughs are going to begin, breakthroughs that our automakers are going to rely on, breakthroughs to compete in the global marketplace, and also breakthroughs to win on the battlefield.
We are in a race for technological and, frankly, innovation dominance. These cuts that have come through from the stroke of a pen in the Oval Office have sincere, grave, and real results that are harmful.
As a lawmaker, I choose to use my time to continue to craft the legislation on quantum and on reauthorizing NSF and NIST that I am so proud to see making its way through the Committee on Science. I hope that my colleagues will join in to pass those bills.
Today, we use our voices to call out the harms of an antiscience agenda, the setbacks it means for equity, the setbacks it means for disadvantaged students, women, and students of color, and what this means for our manufacturers that rely on the diversity of a fully educated, skilled, and trained workforce, something that I see happening every single day in my incredible home State.
It is that grit that Michiganders bring to everything that I know will get us through, and it is with tremendous honor, Mr. Speaker, that I sit and stand with my colleagues tonight as we speak out.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Subramanyam), my incredible colleague, for tonight's Special Order. I thank him for leading with me tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Stevens and all the Members here today who stand up for science and innovation.
This is a matter of profound significance for many Americans. It is a matter of life or death, whether they realize it or not.
It is the responsibility of this body to be stewards of our country's future and leave this country better than how we found it. That means recognizing the pivotal role of science and innovation for the people, as well as the funding, and how it plays a role in making our country great now and in the future.
Standing up for science is more important than ever right now because the reality is this administration has declared a war on science with DOGE, funding cuts, firing contractors, firing scientists and innovators, and trying to chase others out.
For decades, America has been a leader in science and innovation, but this leadership is not our country's birthright. It has been earned over the years through an unwavering commitment to science and innovation.
Make no mistake, our adversaries are watching closely the work we are doing and everything that is happening right now. They want to undermine and replace our leadership in science and innovation. We are at risk of being outrun on AI, quantum, and so many other critical technologies and innovations.
Instead of helping us maintain our global leadership, this administration is slashing funding to our science agencies and firing Federal scientists. The President is proposing a $4.9 billion cut to the National Science Foundation. That is on top of over $1 billion in grant funding that this administration has already terminated. At least $100 million in grant funding was cut from universities just in my State of Virginia alone.
Investments in science and innovation have fueled our economy and started entire industries, given us healthcare breakthroughs, fortified our national defense, and reinforced our leadership in the world.
Make no mistake, these firings and cuts to science and innovation will hurt every single American. They will make us less safe, less healthy, and less prosperous.
I have the honor of representing in northern Virginia one of the most scientifically advanced communities in the country and many of the folks who have been cut, fired, or have seen their funding subject to these cuts. They have seen harassment, intimidation, and firings. They are losing the ability to help Americans stay safe and healthy.
What is happening is that there is a brain drain of science and technology innovators in our country because of these cuts. One of my constituents is a graduate student in astrophysics. She
These cuts are destroying our Nation's pipeline of scientists, technologists, and innovators.
A teacher from my district has been dismayed that the President plans to cut the NASA budget by 24 percent. This will end educational programs that get students excited about the sciences. Do we want to go to Mars? Who is going to take us there? It is going to need the ingenuity and expertise of the American people.
The cuts are not just limited to NASA and the National Science Foundation. They are cutting healthcare research, as well.
A woman in my district said her son has a disease for which NIH was researching a cure. Mr. Speaker, with recent cuts, you can kiss that cure good-bye right now or any hope of her son getting that cure.
Right now, there are so many cuts that we are not solving the problems in healthcare that we need to, to keep our country healthy.
For another woman, her son had congenital blindness, and NIH was searching for a cure for that. That funding is on the chopping block, as well, and also the people who are doing that research.
Another biomedical researcher in the district said it perfectly when he said that the NIH, FDA, CDC, and NSF are making discoveries now that will be the foundation for solutions needed in the years and decades ahead.
We won't even know what we missed with some of these cuts. We won't know what innovations we could have made but for these cuts.
I want to end by saying that I am pretty sure these firings and cuts to science and research aren't about waste, fraud, and abuse or government efficiency. If they were and if this administration actually cared about efficiency, they would know that funding to science, technology, and innovation doubles or triples the investment back in economic activity, not to mention all the lives that research saves and all the people who are kept healthy and safe by this research.
This does not have to be partisan. This does not have to be controversial in any way. Mr. Speaker, I call on all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for science, research, and innovation because standing up for science means standing up for the health, safety, and prosperity of every American.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Subramanyam, a new freshman member on the Committee on Science and Member of this very body. As we can tell, he is already leading in an extraordinary way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), who is well past his freshman term but also from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for putting this together. I really appreciate it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Trump administration's attack on our scientific workforce and on science, specifically at the National Science Foundation, located a few blocks from my home.
Today, my colleagues and I introduced a resolution commemorating the 75th anniversary of the National Science Foundation. We should be enormously proud to support the work of the NSF.
Since 1950, the National Science Foundation has helped the U.S. lead the world in science. It supported the research and key investments that helped catalyze the internet, advanced technology for MRI machines, 3D printing, and artificial intelligence.
It created American Sign Language, detected gravitational waves that developed LASIK eye surgery, and much, much more.
It has been a cornerstone of our scientific education in the United States, providing support from elementary and prekindergarten right through the Ph.D. level.
NSF's prestigious awards draw researchers from across the world to come to the United States to do their work and to study. Best for us, they often stay.
The same incredible talent is under attack by this President, who is not only recklessly removing our best scientists from the Federal workforce but also defunding science and the scientific research at our Nation's premier institutions. These are exactly the people who create America's future.
In his skinny budget request, the President proposed a $5 billion cut to the National Science Foundation, including $1 billion in STEM education and workforce programs. If that budget request is enacted by Congress, this will be a death knell for our innovation economy and for America's future.
I have already been alarmed by the workforce cuts the Trump administration has made over the past months. We are losing our best and our brightest. Some might find jobs in the private sector, but many are likely to be poached by other countries. We hear again and again that many countries are trying to recruit our best and brightest.
I know this personally because these cuts have heavily impacted my home. I have had hundreds of constituents, thousands, fired or coerced out of the Federal workforce by the toxic environment that DOGE is intentionally creating. These are professionals who have dedicated their talent, their lives, and their scientific expertise to ensure that the National Science Foundation is advancing the most cutting- edge, innovative research proposals.
Mr. Speaker, the last thing we should be doing is losing that talent.
I am also deeply alarmed at canceled grants and funding at NSF and our scientific agencies.
The Trump administration has cut more than $1 billion in awards this year. Many of these grants were terminated for no reason by the administration. One particularly egregious example was an award on improving the effectiveness of teaching students how to do computer science. Really?
At a time when we need to increase our domestic AI and STEM focused workforce, we need students to be familiar with the artificial intelligence systems of tomorrow, so that they can contribute to our continued leadership in tech.
Mr. Speaker, I keep looking for examples in history on this retreat from knowledge. There were England's Luddites in the early 19th century who fought the use of new textile technology. There was Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution 1966 through 1976 when intellectuals and scientists were labeled the ``Stinking Old Ninth'' and were sent to reeducation camps in the countryside.
For 75 years, the National Science Foundation has kept the U.S. at the forefront of science and has made us the envy of the world.
The NSF can claim 268 Nobel Prize winners. Yet now we have a President and an administration that is antiscience and antiprogress.
Just as we have made investments in projects that are pivotal in artificial intelligence, quantum, and other leading areas at NIH, NOAA, NASA, the CDC, EPA, and, tragically, the National Science Foundation, now is not the time that we stop investing in our future. This is what the Trump administration is doing.
I join my colleagues today to stand up for science, to oppose the administration's attacks on the National Science Foundation, and to fiercely champion our investment in science and knowledge for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Beyer for his great leadership in Congress and for his continued dedication to education as he is getting a degree in artificial intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, we also have another very well-degreed Member of Congress, Dr. Bill Foster, whom I have been so proud to serve alongside for many years in this Chamber and, of course, for many years on the Science Committee where we have passed a lot of bills together.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Stevens and Congressman Subramanyam for organizing this on such an important topic.
As Congress' sole Ph.D. physicist, I spent 25 years of my life, before coming to Congress, working at the Department of Energy Office of Science supported laboratory. We were smashing protons and antiprotons together to make particles that have not been around since the big bang. I am proud to have been on the team that discovered the top quark, the heaviest known
Amidst the Republican assault on science, I am going to focus my remarks tonight mainly on the NSF.
On May 10, we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the National Science Foundation. Today, together with my fellow Representatives Don Beyer, Dr. Scott Franklin, and Haley Stevens, we introduced a House resolution to celebrate that anniversary.
The resolution highlights the importance of the NSF for our Nation's research enterprise and the workforce it supports, totaling roughly 350,000 students, teachers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and researchers, including 268 Nobel Prize winners to date.
The NSF is a cornerstone of American innovation and is foundational for continuing basic research discoveries. We hope this work continues for many decades to come.
Support for Federal science agencies like the NSF have led to new and unexpected research directions that would not have been possible without Federal funding.
That is why it is important that we recognize the role that NSF- funded basic research plays in the discoveries driving the next generation of science.
This includes funding for AI, for cybersecurity, for supercomputers, fusion energy, space, ocean exploration, black holes, semiconductors, and, last but not least, the internet.
In addition to basic research, the NSF also funds many educational programs supporting the next generation of scientists. Perhaps in the fullness of time that is its most crucial mission because it enables the careers to move forward in science of these young people who have shared my fascination with science.
Over the past 75 years, the NSF has stayed true to its mission to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense.
Underpinning this has been its commitment to a merit-based and peer- reviewed grant process that has ensured that good science is consistently prioritized and free from political interference.
The NSF has had an exemplary 75 years, and I look forward to its progress in the next 75.
So, how are Republicans celebrating this anniversary?
By slashing the budget by a factor of two and muzzling the science.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration has failed to see the importance of this Federal investment in science for our country's future.
The President's fiscal year 2026 budget proposes cutting the NSF budget by 55 percent, including fundamental research, education, and broadening participation efforts.
Other agencies have been impacted by the funding cuts, including NIH by 37 percent, NOAA by 24 percent, the EPA by 54 percent, NASA's science arm by 46 percent, and the Department of Energy Office of Science by 14 percent, among many others.
Long term, these cuts will have detrimental impacts on scientific and technological innovation and cause irreparable damage to our global competitiveness. So this discussion could not come at a more important time.
As a result of Trump's directives, all grant funding at the NSF is now halted, and the existing grants are under review for termination.
I led over 100 of my fellow Members in a letter to the administration opposing this unconstitutional grant freeze, which is in direct opposition to Congress' appropriations.
This measure comes after canceling over 1,000 NSF active research grants last month, with another 344 more grants canceled recently in the third consecutive round of Friday terminations.
Why Friday?
It is because Friday traditionally is the time that they reveal actions that they are ashamed of. I wonder why they put it on Friday.
In addition to freezing all grants at the NSF, the agency instituted a 15 percent cap on indirect cost rates for colleges and universities where many of our future scientists receive training and participate in research experiences early in life that spark their curiosity.
Many of these grants across many agencies are impacting STEM education across the career pipeline. In addition to stopping research discoveries, these cuts will lead to the loss of STEM talent, which places the United States at a permanent competitive disadvantage.
President Trump's budget also proposes eliminating NASA's Office of STEM Engagement, which will significantly deter young talent from participating in STEM programming and impair our Nation's ability to lead in scientific fields.
In another Republican assault on STEM education, which seems to be a theme of their cuts, at the U.S. Geological Survey, the Federal hiring freeze led to the termination of a summer internship program for undergraduate students. The National Association of Geoscience Teachers-USGS Cooperative Summer Fellowship program had been running since 1965, matching undergraduate students with mentors and projects at the agency.
Through this program, talented student interns benefit from working with well-established scientists and gain valuable research experience at a well-known science agency. This experience can spark their curiosity in science and may set them up for long-term research careers, assuming, of course, the budget is not slashed there as well.
Altogether, since 1965, around 3,000 interns have contributed to scientific projects in research areas of importance to USGS and NAGT to promote high-quality Earth education.
Programs like this allow students to contribute to our country's scientific achievements, energy resource development, and economic prosperity. However, this year, 39 promising young geoscientists will not have this opportunity.
So what does this mean for the scientific workforce?
The recent departure of the NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan, known to all of us as ``Dr. Panch,'' from the NSF was a really notable negative milestone for this administration's actions.
It is a significant loss when we lose such dedicated and talented public servants. They are leaving the Federal Government workforce not as happy campers, and everybody knows it.
This follows workers like Dr. Peter Marks, who is one of the heroes of Operation Warp Speed and one of the lead scientists at the FDA. There are hundreds of others, unfortunately, following in their footsteps.
To shed light on this issue, for example, this last March, together with my colleague, Don Beyer, I led 37 House Members in a letter to the Trump administration expressing our strong support for the agency and grave concerns with the firing of 168 workers at the NSF.
Unfortunately, the DOGEs in the Trump administration have ignored this sort of appeal completely.
This letter highlighted the importance of NSF funding to our country's leadership in cancer research, energy, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing. None of this work would be possible without program managers and experts who play central roles in grant funding decisions at the agency.
A negative consequence of these actions for our country is that we will not only miss out on scientific breakthroughs that drive our country forward, but lose an entire generation of scientists who cannot complete their NSF-supported training and will abandon research careers altogether, or perhaps, as was mentioned, simply depart for countries abroad.
So I want to assure NSF-funded researchers and staff that we are on their side, and we are supporting them. They should keep coming to Congress to tell us about the direct impacts, and that goes for scientists in all fields throughout this country.
It is our duty to ensure that, regardless of the political climate, science remains at the forefront of our Nation's progress and innovation.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my sensible colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support efforts that increase the resiliency of our Federal science agencies in the face of these growing threats from the administration, and to continue supporting the U.S. research workforce.
Congratulations, again, to the NSF on celebrating 75 years. We will continue to fight for the agency's viability
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Stevens for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, my name is George Whitesides, and I represent California's 27th Congressional District.
Before I was a Member of Congress, I served as the Chief of Staff of NASA and later as the CEO of an aerospace company that created hundreds of well-paying jobs in the Antelope Valley. I have a degree in remote sensing with GIS. I grew up in a science family. My dad is a chemist and a professor. I have worked on new and innovative ways to tackle our wildfire crisis, a growing threat that the people I represent know all too well.
I know from firsthand experience that the United States is home to the smartest, most hardworking, and most impressive minds of our time who have dedicated their lives to helping families across the country fight deadly diseases, predict and prevent natural disasters before they hit, and mount a challenge against our foreign rivals like China.
However, we can't continue this important work without our scientific institutions.
Recently, our biggest scientific agencies have come under a full- scale attack with the administration's proposed budget effectively annihilating the very science that keeps us safe. Programs that previously had broad, bipartisan support, such as the Army Corps of Engineers water infrastructure fund, EPA's drinking water and clean water funds for States, forestry operations, energy utility assistance for low-income households, science and technology programs, and agricultural support are all on the chopping block.
At NASA, satellites that allow us to understand weather patterns, monitor our changing climate, and track fires as they move and spread are at risk of being deorbited. Employees in my home district who work at NASA Armstrong and JPL have no idea what their futures hold.
NOAA, an organization that helps families across the country prepare for natural disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes, is being gutted from the ground up.
The NIH, which works on groundbreaking cures for diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, and heart disease, has supplied significantly fewer grants and awards to scientists than in previous administrations, effectively halting our work on critical medical advances.
From February to April, the administration terminated nearly 700 grants across 24 NIH institutes and centers focused on subjects such as aging, cancer, child health, diabetes, mental health, and neurological disorders.
We are not only losing the promise of progress and cures and climate technology, we are losing critical data that allow us to better understand the world we live in and respond to growing threats that we face, both foreign and domestic.
That is why today I led my colleagues with similar scientific backgrounds to let the administration know exactly what will happen to our Nation if they gut these science agencies. A letter was sent to the President drawing on our diverse backgrounds and constituencies to let him know exactly why science is a good investment for the future of our children and for our country.
Make no mistake, we can always be better and more efficient, and these are ideals that we should all strive for. These are ideals that Americans fairly demand from their government, and we should all be working toward that challenge.
When I helped lead NASA for President Obama, we constantly iterated and improved our existing systems because we knew how important it was to stretch the taxpayer dollar as far as it can go.
Taking a sledgehammer and a chain saw to entire institutions that allow us to stay safe and also remain competitive on the global scale is not only unwise, it is dangerous.
The bottom line is that science is an incredible investment for jobs today and for the future of our country.
I am going to keep fighting for the families across my district who need NASA satellites to know if their houses are going to be safe from fires, for seniors who need medical advancements to live long and healthy lives, and for red States and blue States that will be hit by tornadoes and hurricanes in the months and years to come.
I am here to stand up for families in my district and across the country who will be less safe and more at risk as a result of these cuts. I am here as an innovator and entrepreneur to stand up for science.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Whitesides for his comments. How lucky the people of California are to have his representation and how lucky the United States Congress is to have his expertise.
Mr. Speaker, I yield now to Mrs. Foushee of North Carolina, another proven expert, leader and fighter, and ranking member on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleagues for organizing this Special Order hour.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in solidarity with my colleagues to stand up and speak out against the proposed budget and demonization of science and the science community.
America is where we are today because of what we create. Whether it is manufacturing, innovation, scientific and medical research, or technology transfer, all these fields require science and the millions of researchers and innovators who push American STEM in our Nation's workforce to the forefront.
These efforts are critical to my district, which includes the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Duke University, North Carolina Central University, Durham and Wake Technical Community Colleges, and so many new up-and-coming industry leaders in STEM.
However, in total, the Trump administration has canceled nearly $20 million in NSF research grants to North Carolina as a whole.
Take, for instance, an NSF-funded grant that was recently canceled in my district, North Carolina's Fourth, that was aimed at addressing the lack of diversity in the engineering doctoral workforce and promoting the retention of students from underrepresented groups.
Recent doctoral engineering attrition rates revealed a disproportionately high loss of students from groups historically underrepresented in STEM, like women, minorities, and people from rural areas.
Researchers in my district were working to help us address this critical gap, funded by NSF, now canceled under the guise of being so- called woke.
Still, the majority continues to conflate the need to bolster manufacturing with the destruction of our scientific institutions.
We need to make things here at home. Does America really win if China does all the innovation?
I like the idea of an America that supports domestic manufacturing and is a leader in innovation, not an America that does China's manufacturing work.
Right now, because of the senseless cuts to NSF, NIH, and scientific institutions across the board, we are, instead, taking steps toward losing a generation of innovators and helping China lead global STEM innovation, not us.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Foushee for her ongoing leadership for women in the sciences and for HBCUs that are also so important to our STEM scientific research enterprise.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pass the floor over to the congresswoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump's war on science is putting our country and our economy in peril. From haphazard firings of Federal workers who work on nuclear security and keep our food and medicine safe to firefighters and healthcare workers, I am here to say enough is enough.
As a proud woman in STEM and a bona fide science nerd, I cannot sit quietly as this administration jeopardizes the scientific advancement of this country.
That is why I am here to say enough; enough of the lies about Project 2025 and its antiscience agenda; enough with the dismantling of the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National Science Foundation; enough with canceling grants for medical research and STEM programs that ensure our country stays safe and globally competitive; enough with pedaling disinformation that jeopardizes the health and well-being of millions of Americans; and enough with hiring unqualified pundits, influencers, and political loyalists who pedal conspiracy theories and openly admit that no one should rely on them for advice. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows who I mean.
America is a leader in science and technology. We were the first in the world to send a man to the moon. We invented the polio vaccine and DNA sequencing. We invented the microchip, the internet, and GPS. Americans invented the airplane, the lightbulb, television, and email, and we fed the world with our innovations in food and agriculture.
Over the last 3\1/2\ months, we have seen an unprecedented attack on our Nation's science and technology, programs gutted, projects halted, and the world's leading scientists and engineers fired for no reason. A budget delivered to Congress just a couple of weeks ago by the President that would cut over a billion dollars in science, education, and workforce programs. A budget that would slash 30 percent of NOAA's budget, and strip the Environmental Protection Agency of more than half of its funding.
That is why nearly 2,000 doctors, scientists, and researchers have called this administration a wholesale assault on United States science that threatens the country's health, national security, and economic development.
Congress, the courts, and our communities are fighting back, conducting oversight, voting no, showing up to agencies, supporting cases across the Federal court system, and, yes, getting loud in the streets to stand with science.
Democrats stand with our scientists, our engineers, our innovators, and our healthcare workers. Democrats stand with our Federal science and healthcare agencies. Democrats stand with the people of this country who depend on that science and who depend on that innovation to keep us safe and fuel our economy because that is all of us.
I say to my fellow leaders in STEM, stay strong, stay in the fight. Democrats are fighting with you, and we will win.
Mr. Speaker, I thank our science nerds and enthusiasts for their work, just as Ms. Stansbury so nicely laid out.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the floor to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), another great warrior for scientific research and funding and support for the manufacturing economy of this country and a leader in the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Stevens for the kind introduction. I thank Representative Subramanyam for cohosting this showcasing of supporters of science and tech in our economy and the investments that we can make in our government.
No nation can maintain its leadership status in the world without investments made and attention paid to science, to science technology, engineering, and math.
It is essential that we grow that population of scientists, of engineers who can then provide for the muscle of our innovation economy, to allow for that intellectual capacity of this great Nation and the pioneer spirit of this Nation to continue to foster this growth of product delivery that speaks to the quality of life of people across this great world.
We as a nation have been a leader. I think back to the humble beginnings of this Nation. In the 1800s, there was a development of the Erie Canal in upstate New York that is still looked to as perhaps the first tech corridor.
The eastern mouth of that Erie Canal is included in the geography that I serve in New York's 20th Congressional District, in the greater capital region. Along that canal, we not only provided for a great connection of a great ocean, the Atlantic, with the Great Lakes that inspired a westward movement into the midland of our country, into the States that border the Great Lakes.
With that came the development of a necklace of communities dubbed ``mill towns'' that became the epicenters of invention and innovation, that inspired all sort of product delivery and responses to the needs of this world, and impacted favorably not only the quality of life in our United States but in nations around the world.
That whole history, that powerful statement of what can be created when we invest in our manufacturing, in our technology, in our science community is proof that we need to continue forward in that vein.
Since January, Donald Trump and his political allies have launched a full-scale assault on America's scientific enterprise. Federal investments in science power nearly every aspect of our modern life, medical breakthroughs, clean air and water, accurate weather forecasts, safe food, and real solutions to the climate crisis.
This administration has made their position painfully clear. They simple many don't care. Instead, they are injecting partisan politics into research, censoring scientists, punishing experts, and pulling funding from projects that challenge their narrow ideology. They don't care about protecting communities from the climate disaster, and we are going to continue to write checks for disaster aid if we continue this ignoring of climate change.
They don't care about preventing the next pandemic. We have learned that science became very much focused upon during the whole COVID crisis. They don't care about making STEM more inclusive, and they certainly don't care if Americans suffer as a result.
This isn't just wrong, it is a blatant attack on scientific integrity. Integrity in research is essential, essential to scientific excellence and to maintaining the public's trust.
That is why, as an engineer and lifelong advocate for science, I have made it one of my top priorities in Congress to right the ship of American science policy.
As part of that effort, I am indeed proud to lead the bipartisan Scientific Integrity Act. Tomorrow, we will be the launching of the Scientific Integrity Task Force to continue the fight to protect science from political interference.
Hands off science. Let that pure product of research get delivered to those decisionmakers, those policymakers, and let us determine what those findings mean in terms of the need for additional policy and research advocacy. Let us do it in the purest sense.
New York's 20th Congressional District has felt the effects of these attacks firsthand. Over $715 million in National Science Foundation grants have been terminated in New York's 20th Congressional District alone, including a $1 million award to the University at Albany's Project SAGES.
Project SAGES was created to confront one of the deepest, most persistent inequities in science, and that is the underrepresentation of women, especially women of color, in faculty positions. This was peer-reviewed, data-driven, mission-critical science, and we need to make certain that we continue to build upon that.
Cutting this program sends a clear message to a generation of researchers: You don't belong.
It doesn't stop there. Another canceled UAlbany NSF grant supported a collaborative study to improve public understanding of population science, especially around climate change, racial justice, and the rise of misinformation. The goal was to equip students in communities with tools to recognize and challenge the misuse of demographic data, data increasingly weaponized to justify political extremism and division.
Does that sound familiar? You bet it does.
SUNY campuses, the State University of New York campuses, across the State lost almost $2.5 million in NSF support for programs helping students of color succeed in STEM through research opportunities, mentorships, and academic support. These students are the future of a diverse and dynamic scientific workforce, and this administration slammed the door in their faces.
Let's be clear. These cuts are not about efficiency. They are not about
I will not stay silent while extremists attack our scientists, our students, our universities, and our future.
We are woefully underproducing scientists and engineers in our society. You can look at the growth of those communities in other nations, other continents. This country is woefully underproducing. We do not have the luxury of walking away from any one demographic of students out there based on gender, race, or ethnicity to meet our goals. We cannot skip over any of those populations.
We must stand up--stand up for science, stand up for equity, and stand up for the truth.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Ms. Stevens and Mr. Subramanyam, for hosting this Special Order hour. Their leadership is much needed, and I appreciate them.
Madam Speaker, I rise today because something is deeply wrong. The Trump administration is gutting our Nation's scientific infrastructure and doing it with purpose. This isn't some misunderstanding or clerical error. It is an attack on research, on truth, and on the people who have dedicated their lives to making our country stronger, smarter, and healthier.
Thousands of scientists have been laid off. Grants approved by Congress are being withheld. Whole labs are shutting down. Now, the administration wants to slash funding for the NIH, the CDC, the Department of Energy's labs, and the university partnerships that have built the modern American economy.
They call this reform. It is not reform. It is a dagger to the heart of American innovation.
Let's be honest about what's going on here. Elon Musk and the so- called Department of Government Efficiency are using the Federal Government to settle scores: cancer trials, nonessential; national science databases, too expensive. That is not policy. It is a crusade against expertise.
Last month, I sat down with five undergraduate researchers at UC Riverside. They are doing remarkable work on everything from climate change to biomedical engineering. Their students are bright; their ideas are bold; and their funding is suddenly at risk, not because the science failed but because politics did.
While we fire researchers, other countries are sending job offers. France, Germany, Canada, and Australia are rolling out the red carpet for the scientists we are pushing out the door.
While we make it harder for international students, researchers, and the greatest minds around the world to come, to bring their talent, other countries are offering funding, housing, and guaranteed lab space.
One institute called it a ``once-in-a-century brain gain opportunity,'' a once-in-a-century brain gain opportunity for other countries. This is what it looks like when a country values science. Meanwhile, we are bleeding talent.
As ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I need to speak plainly: Our veterans are being hurt, too.
In Pennsylvania, doctors at VA hospitals warned that lifesaving cancer trials were being shut down. I was told by the Secretary--I rushed from that hearing--that they really weren't being shut down, but there are a lot of questions around the status of these trials.
More than 1,000 veterans are at risk of losing access to treatments for head and neck cancer, kidney disease, and traumatic brain injuries. Some of these trials have not been restarted.
In Pittsburgh, a study for veterans struggling with opioid addiction stalled out when a hiring freeze hit.
In Los Angeles, all chemotherapy treatments almost stopped entirely before the VA reversed course.
These are not just numbers. These are people. These are veterans who stepped up for this country, who are now wondering why the country will not step up for them.
We passed the PACT Act to expand care to those exposed to burn pits and other toxins. It was the largest expansion of veterans' care in generations, making good on a promise to help those who served our Nation. Now, it is being broken.
While all of this is happening, China is investing billions in biotech, AI, and clean energy. They are not just competing with us; they are outpacing us because they are not undermining their own scientists.
While we fire, they fund. While we second-guess researchers, they fast-track them.
We are not losing this race because we Americans are not capable. We are losing because we are allowing our government to sabotage them.
Today, some of the National Science Foundation scientists who were fired may be watching from the gallery, others--grad students, post- docs, public health experts--are tuning in from their labs and classrooms across the country.
To all of them, I say this: We see you. We value you. We are not giving up on you. This is not about science; it is about who we are as a country.
Do we invest in the people solving cancer, or do we dismiss them as expendable?
Do we stand by our veterans mid-treatment, or do we tell them to wait until the budget looks better?
Do we fight to stay at the forefront of discovery and innovation, or do we hand the future to someone else?
Madam Speaker, I represent a region full of young people who believe they can cure disease, fight climate change, and explore the stars. What message are we sending them right now?
We should be investing in their future, not pulling the rug out from underneath them.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject these cuts, reject this anti-science, anti-veteran agenda. Let us fight for the truth for our researchers, for our vets, and for the country we still have a chance to become.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Subramanyam) to close us out. He is such a leader, and I am so proud of him for helping with this Special Order hour.
Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Stevens for yielding, and I will keep it very short.
A study a few weeks ago said that a 25 percent reduction in public support of science and research would correlate to a 3.8 percent drop in economic output. That is the same as the Great Recession. That is how bad it would be.
Protecting science funding is not just about labs or some agencies. It is about preserving hope for families across the country. These cuts are bad for our economy, small businesses, parents, children, teachers, patients, you name it. Our country cannot afford these massive cuts to science and innovation.
We must reject these cuts and stand up for the health, safety, and prosperity of every American.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
We will continue to use our voices. To every scientific researcher, science student, and American wondering, we have your back. We will use our voices. We will not be silent in the face of these cuts.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Evans for yielding.
Madam Speaker, this National Police Week is a somber one for Minnesotans, as we have lost three brave officers in the line of duty: Paul Elmstrand, Matthew Ruge, and Jamal Mitchell. I would also be remiss if I did not acknowledge Firefighter/Paramedic Adam Finseth.
In February 2024, Paul Elmstrand and Matthew Ruge were attempting to negotiate with a convicted felon who had taken several family members hostage, including seven children. After 3\1/2\ hours of negotiations, the subject opened fire on the officers. Firefighter/Paramedic Adam Finseth was fired on while trying to help the wounded officers to an armored vehicle.
On February 18, 2024, Officers Elmstrand and Ruge and Firefighter/ Paramedic Finseth did not return home to their families.
In May 2024, officers responded to shots fired in Minneapolis, Minnesota. When the officers arrived, a gunfight ensued. Officer Jamal Mitchell stopped to help what he thought was a wounded victim on the ground. The subject opened multiple rounds and fired upon Officer Mitchell.
On May 30, 2024, Officer Jamal Mitchell did not return home to his family.
I visited the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial yesterday morning. I saw the names of these men etched into the walls alongside their brothers and sisters who have also paid the ultimate sacrifice.
I saw the pictures and the notes left behind by loved ones. I saw the Minneapolis Police patch accompanied by two beers, a silent farewell from a colleague who never got that last drink with their friend.
Every year, we have to put more names on that wall, and every year, it is just as heartbreaking as the last. We have to do better by the men and women who serve our communities. We have to support them in their actions, our policies, and our rhetoric. We need to care for their families as if they were our own.
I thank those who put on the law enforcement uniform every day, who kiss their families good-bye not knowing if they will come home. It is because of them that our communities and loved ones are safe.
To my fellow law enforcement officers across this great Nation, in big and small communities, although my time in uniform may be over, my watch will never end. Please know that I will use my time in office to serve you and your families always.
Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado (Mr. Evans) and my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), both police officers. Of course, the gentleman from Colorado was a fellow helicopter pilot, unrestricted aviator, and I thank the gentleman for the time that he has given me today.
Madam Speaker, today I honor a friend of mine and a true American patriot, Commander Bruce ``Puppy'' Fecht, born November 16, 1955, passed away March 16, 2025.
Captain Bruce William Fecht, U.S. Navy, retired, a true American hero, passed away on March 16, 2025, at the age of 69. He was born in Missoula, Montana, to Robert William Fecht and Marjorie June Fehr. When he was a young boy, the family along with older sister Bobbi moved to Spokane, Washington, where the family grew to include his two younger sisters, Rebecca and Brenda.
Bruce went to Mead High School, where he was a standout basketball player. He continued his education and basketball prowess at Spokane Community College, eventually completing his electrical engineering degree at UW.
His first job at AT&T offered the comfort of a 9-to-5 routine, but it was the thrill of flight that ultimately called to him.
Bruce pursued his dream of becoming a naval aviator, applying to and being accepted into Aviation Officer Candidate School in Pensacola, Florida. He was commissioned in 1982, and 1 year later in April 1983, he received his wings of gold in Beeville, Texas, marking the beginning of a distinguished career in the skies.
For the next decade, Bruce, call sign Puppy--we will talk about that in a bit--served with distinction in various squadrons, including the VF-124 Gunslingers, VF-111 Sundowners, VF-126 Bandits, and VF-1 Wolfpack, flying the iconic F-14A and F-14D Tomcat along with the T-2C, A4-E, and F-16N.
He completed multiple deployments aboard aircraft carriers like the USS Carl Vinson, USS Ranger, and USS Enterprise.
He also graduated from Fighter Weapons School, Top Gun, Adversary Course and earned a master of science degree in systems management from the University of Southern California.
Bruce was selected as an extra for the movie ``Top Gun,'' and he can be seen a couple of times, which was filmed on sight in Miramar. He can be seen in the infamous ``Top Gun'' group photo used in the movie.
Bruce's career was defined not only by his technical skills and unmatched piloting abilities but also by his leadership. After 14 years in the cockpit, he transitioned to staff roles, including serving as the Pol-Mil officer at U.S. European Command in Stuttgart, Germany. There, he played a key role in operations in the Middle East, focusing on Israel, Lebanon, and Syria.
Bruce returned to the cockpit in 1999, joining the VF-14 Tophatters as executive officer and, later, commanding officer.
Bruce was a man of faith and in the last 2 years of his life, he earned a master's degree in Catholic theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville. He planned to retire from General Atomics and serve as a chaplain. He attended Saint Ann Catholic Church in Ridgecrest, California, and enjoyed serving meals and singing in the choir.
Bruce will be forever remembered for his great sense of humor and his generous heart. He was a faithful son, wonderful brother, and a fun uncle to his nephews and nieces. His personal relationship with Jesus Christ took him through his last difficult journey with the strength and confidence that he can trust his Lord with the outcome of his life.
We will miss him dearly but look forward to the day we will be reunited in Heaven. Bruce is survived by his sisters, Bobbi, Rebecca, and Brenda; numerous nieces and nephews; cousins; aunts; friends; and the countless men and women who were fortunate to serve alongside him. He leaves behind a legacy of courage, integrity, and commitment to excellence that will continue to inspire for generations to come.
Madam Speaker, it is Police Week. In honor of Police Week, I will recognize two remarkable individuals whose bravery and dedication serve as examples of heroism in our communities.
First, I honor the life and service of Detention Officer Isaiah Patrick Bias of Ellis County Sheriff's Office. Last December, Officer Bias made the ultimate sacrifice while serving his community at the Ellis County Jail.
He began his journey with the sheriff's office as a teenager in the Explorer Program, growing into a respected officer known for his kindness and professionalism.
I had the honor of attending Officer Bias' funeral, where family, friends, and fellow officers gathered to remember a man who served with dignity and heart.
Ellis County Sheriff Brad Norman spoke of Isaiah's unwavering dedication and the impact he made on everyone who knew him.
His passing is a powerful reminder during this Police Week of the dangers faced by our law enforcement officers each and every day. His memory serves as a beacon of service and courage to us all.
Madam Speaker, I next recognize Mollie McCalister.
Mollie is a dispatcher from Cherokee County, whose quick thinking and intuition saved a life.
Most days, Mollie takes calls about all kinds of things: lost pets, traffic accidents, and folks just needing a little
A woman called asking about her child's eye prescription. That might sound like an odd call for 911, but Mollie picked up on something: a hesitation, a tone in her voice.
She knew something wasn't right. She sensed fear and desperation from the other side of the phone. Rather than brushing it off, Mollie followed her instincts. She coordinated with deputies in the area and sent them to the caller's location.
Thank God she did because that woman was being held at gunpoint. Madam Speaker, because of her actions, the suspect was arrested, and that caller is still with us today.
That is real heroism. It is not the kind you read about in big headlines but the kind that happens every single day in our communities because people like Mollie are paying attention. She listened. She cared and because of that, a life was saved. Mollie reminds us that sometimes the most important thing you can do is simply listen and act.
Today, I was privileged to recognize these two heroes, but I am not the only one you have heard from today, and these are not the only two people in my district who deserve recognition.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the lives and the legacies of two remarkable law enforcement officers from California's Inland Empire: Officer Seth Franklin of the Redlands Police Department, and Officer Shaun Jarvis of the San Bernardino Police Department.
These two men dedicated their lives to serving and protecting others not just as officers but as fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers. Their commitment to their communities was matched only by their love for their families.
Officer Seth Franklin passed away on April 6, 2025, after a long and courageous battle with cancer. He was just 34. He is survived by his wife, two young children, his parents, and three siblings. Seth was known for his leadership, compassion, and quiet strength; qualities that define not just his work, but every part of his life.
Officer Shaun Jarvis tragically lost his life on May 1, 2014, in a motorcycle accident. He was only 30. Shaun left behind his wife, Rachel; their two young children, Griffin and Aislynn; and his stepdaughter, Aubrey, who he proudly raised as his own.
He was a deeply devoted family man who made time for the moments that mattered, whether it was coaching Little League or walking his daughter to her first day of school year after year after year.
This year, Officer Jarvis' name was added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, D.C. His service and sacrifice are now forever enshrined among the heroes who gave their lives in the line of duty or while still devoted to their uniform.
Madam Speaker, these men lived with purpose and served with honor. Their legacies endure in the lives that they touched, the families that they loved, and the communities that they helped keep safe. We owe them and their families a debt that we can never fully repay.
I ask my colleagues to join me in offering our deepest condolences and sincerest gratitude to these two men.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding to me.
Madam Speaker, every single day, our brave men and women in blue leave their families not knowing if they will return home.
During National Police Week, we pause to show our gratitude for our law enforcement officers and recognize the sacrifices that they make every single day to keep our communities safe.
Today, I particularly recognize Fred Fislar from the Hendricks County Sheriff's Office and Brandon Schreiber from the Newton County Sheriff's Office, two constituents of mine who tragically lost their lives in the line of duty in 2024.
Their service and sacrifice will not be forgotten.
To the law enforcement officers across the State of Indiana, I thank them for their unwavering courage, dedication, and service to our communities.
I also thank the families of our law enforcement officers. Their strength, resilience, and sacrifices should also be honored and appreciated.
Let this week serve as a reminder that we should always back the blue.
Madam Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week in strong support of the law enforcement community and the men and women I served with in my former career as a police officer as we all worked together to protect our communities.
Police service runs deep in my blood. In fact, both of my grandfathers were proud veterans. One of them, my abuelito Cuauhtemoc Chavez, earned his citizenship in World War II along with two Purple Hearts.
My other grandfather, Gregory Evans, was a career naval aviator. He believed that service to this country wasn't just an obligation; it was a privilege. That belief has shaped who I am today.
From a young age, I was taught that truly loving this country means being willing to serve, to protect, and to sacrifice for it. That lesson has stayed with me and led me to serve 12 years in the U.S. Army and the Colorado Army National Guard, and later to my 10 years of service with the Arvada Police Department.
Wearing the uniform teaches you so much about leadership, resilience, and responsibility. It gives a deeper understanding and respect for the men and women who put themselves in harm's way for others. These are the people who don't just talk about courage and service; they live it.
During my first term here in Congress, I have made it a priority to defend and honor our law enforcement officers, especially those who have given everything in the line of duty.
The very first bill I introduced as a Member of this House was about defending and uplifting our State and local law enforcement, the UPLIFT Act.
This bill is about empowering law enforcement officers to do their jobs and keep our communities safe by extending hold harmless protections to officers who work with Federal law enforcement to remove people who are illegally present in our communities and who are committing other crimes.
In fact, I found out just today that a friend of mine had lost a daughter, Kaitlyn Weaver, to an illegal immigrant who was driving over 90 miles an hour in a 45-mile-an-hour zone and created a fatal traffic accident.
Unfortunately, the State that I represent, Colorado, continues to prioritize the protection of illegal immigrants who commit crimes over the safety of innocent American citizens like Kaitlyn.
While Colorado has been a sanctuary State for nearly 6 years, the State legislature continues to handcuff police officers from cooperating with their Federal law enforcement counterparts. Colorado also severely restricts local police officers from being able to even safely and orderly transfer a criminal to Federal custody, which jeopardizes officer safety and results in our police officers being assaulted.
My bill, the UPLIFT Act, would help fix this problem. As a former cop, I will never stop advocating for the protection and well-being of law enforcement.
While my first bill focused on defending law enforcement, my most recent one focuses on honoring law enforcement. As someone who has worn the badge, I know firsthand the sacrifice and commitment that the job requires.
Law enforcement isn't just a profession. It is a calling. It takes a special kind of person to wake up every day knowing the risks, knowing the dangers, and knowing that that might be their last day, and they still put on the uniform and go to work
John 15:13 talks about the greatest love that someone has as being willing to lay down their life for their friends. Police officers across our country embody that kind of love every single day when they go out and protect our communities.
When I think about this fundamental principle of law enforcement, I think about officers from my district. I think about folks like Weld County Sheriff's Deputy Sam Brownlee.
A devoted husband, father, and stepfather, Deputy Brownlee was tragically shot and killed in the line of duty in 2010 during a struggle with a gang member. He served with distinction for 5 years with the Weld County Sheriff's Department and was always committed to protecting his community.
Deputy Brownlee's story is one that should never be forgotten. His sacrifice is a solemn reminder of the risks that our law enforcement officers face every day and the courage it takes to wear the badge. That is why I am proud to announce that, this week, during National Police Week, I introduced a bill to rename the Evans Post Office in Weld County after Deputy Brownlee to ensure that the community that he loved is able to properly honor and remember his courage, his service, and his enduring legacy.
In a time when law enforcement officers across this country face growing threats and far too little appreciation, we must do more to recognize their bravery, their sacrifice, and their families.
This bill is a tribute not just to Deputy Brownlee, but to every officer who has laid down their life in defense of their community and the families that they left behind.
I look forward to continuing to build support for this bill with the Colorado delegation and working to get it signed into law.
Part of my passion in doing this comes from one of these specific assignments that I had when I was a police officer. I served in a variety of capacities, but one of the most meaningful was serving as a member of, a sergeant of, and the lieutenant for our Honor Guard.
The Honor Guard is the agency within a police department that is responsible for conducting a variety of ceremonies. They do the flag postings at civic events, but one of the most sacred responsibilities that they have is honoring the fallen officers who gave their lives in the line of duty.
I served in that role for several years with my agency and, unfortunately, I have buried more officers than I can remember starting with Heath Gumm of the Adams County Sheriff's Department and ending with Eric Talley from the Boulder Police Department.
There are two officers that I had to bury that I will specifically mention. The first was my friend and coworker for almost 10 years, Officer Gordon Beesley of the Arvada Police Department.
Gordon was a school resource officer. He was one of the nicest people that you would ever meet. In fact, before his ambush and murder, he actually was making the news because of his work as a school resource officer who took the time to personally ride his bike to school with a kid who was having some trouble at that school.
Officer Beesley truly embodied what it meant to serve your community, to protect your community, and to work alongside your community to make sure that everyone gets the best possible outcome that they possibly can. He had a life motto and his life motto was: Find the good. Find the good in every person and in every situation.
Even though he was a police officer and had to sometimes do things like put handcuffs on people and hold others accountable, Gordon Beesley lived by those words every single day. He was a pillar in the community who truly worked to find the good in every situation.
Another officer from my agency was Officer Dillon Vakoff. Dillon was actually an Air Force veteran. He served for several years in the United States Air Force before he became a police officer. Dillon was actually an officer on one of the units that I commanded. He was one of my mobile field force officers. I remember training him to be able to go out and do the requirements of that special assignment.
Dillon was, unfortunately, shot and killed on September 11, 2022, while he was responding to an altercation that turned deadly.
Dillon also had a motto that he lived by. I can't say it on the floor of this House, but the acronym for it is NFQ. It means never quit.
Dillon was somebody who never quit. He never quit in his commitment to his country. He never quit in his commitment to his State. And Dillon never quit even when he was called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice and lay down his life in defense of his community.
In many ways Dillon embodies what it means to be a police officer. Having served for 12 years in the Army and another 10 years in law enforcement, I often compare military and law enforcement service to being two sides of the same coin or to use police terminology, two sides of the same perimeter.
In law enforcement, whenever we have a dangerous situation, we have to contain that situation to keep the public safe, so we set up what is called an inner perimeter. We also want to make sure that the rest of the community does not go into that perimeter.
While you have an inner perimeter of officers who are containing the situation and who are focused inward, you have an outer perimeter of officers who are making sure that the innocents stay away from a potentially hazardous situation or area.
That is how I see the military and law enforcement. Law enforcement is the inner perimeter. They protect us in our homes, in our communities, in our schools, in our parks, and on our roadways. The military protects us from external threats, but they are two sides of the same coin.
When folks like Dillon or Gordon or Heath Gumm or Eric Talley or so many others are called upon to make that sacrifice, they are making that sacrifice from the exact same motivations as the broader community of military and law enforcement and first responders who are out to make sure that we stay safe.
At a law enforcement funeral, which, again, I have unfortunately been to too many of, we honor those sacrifices, and we make two solemn promises. The first promise is to never forget. We honor that promise by doing things like what we are doing tonight. We honor that promise through memorials and through speeches and through memories, through carrying the actual lives and stories of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Dillon and Gordon are no longer with us, but as long as we talk about them, as long as we talk about how they lived their lives, as long as we carry on their mottos, never quit, find the good, in a small way they are still with us and their memories, their examples, their courage, their commitment, and their service lives on through them as long as we never forget.
There is a second promise that we make at law enforcement funerals. We have the watch from here. Law enforcement is like the thin blue line, individuals may come and go, but the thin blue line itself never sleeps, never grows tired. It doesn't fail. It cannot fail. The thin blue line is what keeps our communities, our country, and our way of life safe from the threats and the harms and the chaos that would exist if just for a single day police officers didn't put on the badge and the uniform and go to work. Individual officers come and go, but the thin blue line never does.
We make a promise to the fallen who gave the ultimate sacrifice. They are no longer able to continue in that watch. We do a final radio call, but then we make a promise. We have the watch from here. For everyone within the sound of my voice--for the police officers, for the citizens, for everyone else, that is the action item, that is the takeaway from this speech. We have the watch from here.
For the police officers, for the first responders, for the families who serve right alongside their loved ones, know that we will not forget and that we will stand by you to the absolute utmost of our abilities because that is what having the watch from here means.
It means that the sacred requirement to protect our communities will not end. It means that those of us, the living, and particularly the living who are in this great self-governed society that
As someone who has made those sacred promises too many times at funerals, it is my honor to stand here today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives on May 15, police day in police week, to reaffirm and to challenge all of us to continue with those two sacred promises: never forget and then go out, be a good citizen, be a member of a community, support the law enforcement officers, and the men and women who themselves are physically every day putting on the badge and the uniform and who are keeping that watch from here.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, and still I rise, Madam Speaker, proud to be an unbought, unbossed, liberated Democrat. I am proud also to have friends, and tonight I will thank a couple of my friends who have helped me with an endeavor that I believe is necessary and that is going to generate a movement that will make a difference in the lives of the people of this country.
Tonight, I will start by thanking my friend, attorney John Bonifaz, a lawyer par excellence, a person who has been involved with the movement to impeach and who has, through his organization, Free Speech For People, they have collected more than 500,000 signatures for impeachment.
These are the people who are at the genesis of this movement, and I thank all of them for what they are doing.
I also thank another friend, a lawyer as well, but a great consumer advocate, a protector of rights for people who we consider consumers, and that, of course, is the attorney Ralph Nader. The great Ralph Nader. While I missed his last birthday, I heard it was quite a celebration. He is 91 years young, and I am grateful to him for all that he has done. He has done things that have benefited people when it comes to safety with automobiles, safety with consumer products, generally speaking.
I thank them both for what they have done in this effort to impeach and to inspire me to do the things that I will do and call to your attention.
Madam Speaker, I also make note that on this evening, I have filed Articles of Impeachment. The articles are H. Res. 415. I say articles. There is really but one article within this resolution.
I will not read the resolution. There will be an appropriate time to read it. This is not that time, but I do want to call to your attention the fact that I have been censured not silenced, and I say this because I will be presenting this resolution, but I have many more things to say about the effort that we are embarking upon and because this effort is so important to us, I will be talking about it a good deal of the time in the future. I am censured but I am not silenced.
I am, at this moment, bringing to the attention of everyone the countdown to impeachment. The countdown begins tonight with a message that I have for my colleagues, for the press, for the public, and for all who are interested in this topic. This message will be sent to persons. It will be published. It will be on my website. It will be available to those who desire to know the essence of it.
The message reads with a reference, and the reference is: ``My reason for impeaching the President: The threat that we said Donald John Trump posed to democracy prior to his being sworn in on January 20, 2025, has become our reality.''
``To whom it may concern:
``I pen this communique with a heavy heart, driven by a conscience that will not allow me to ignore my well-founded, strong preelection condemnation of Donald John Trump as a threat to American democracy that has now become our reality.''
Currently, I am among the many who denounced President Trump as an authoritarian, defined by Merriam Webster as ``of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people.''
I am among those who have pointed out President Trump's failure to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution by flouting constitutional law, as well as the orders of Federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
I am among those who strongly denounce the President's dangerous flouting of separation of powers and undermining the independence of the Federal judiciary by calling for the impeachment of Federal judges who rule against him rather than appealing the decisions, as was explained to all by Chief Justice John Roberts on March 18, 2025.
I am among the throngs who know that the President violates the Fifth Amendment constitutional right to due process when he condones the deportation by our Justice Department of anyone residing in the United States of America to another country without providing them with constitutionally mandated legal process owed to present evidence of why they shouldn't be deported.
Regrettably, the President is doing the above things that I just mentioned in tandem with expressions of American citizens being deported while condoning the potential suspension of the great writ of habeas corpus, another fundamental constitutional right.
I cannot in good conscience, as a Member of Congress, having said what I have said, knowing what I know, wait until the next election to deal with authoritarian President Donald John Trump's pre-election threat to American democracy that has become a post-election assault on our government.
The President has devolved American democracy into authoritarianism with himself as the authoritarian. Authoritarian President Donald John Trump is the problem. The threat of impeachment can act as a deterrent. Should that fail, actual impeachment becomes the solution.
Having presented Articles of Impeachment that laid the foundation for President Trump's prior impeachments, which contributed to his Presidential defeat, I am compelled by my moral imperative, driven by my conscience to act again.
In Federalist No. 65 of the 85 articles of essays contained within the Federalist Papers, written to promote the ratification of the Constitution, the great Alexander Hamilton explains that the subject of the Senate's jurisdiction for trials of impeachment are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.
Contrary to what many status quo personalities may have you believe and would have you believe, there is no requirement for the existence of a constitutional crisis before impeaching for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Because of the importance of this statement, I shall repeat it. Contrary to what many status quo personalities would have us believe, there is no requirement for the existence of a constitutional crisis before impeaching for high crimes and misdemeanors.
In fact, in 1868, President Andrew Johnson was impeached for speaking ill of Congress in Article 10 of the Articles of Impeachment against him. Federal Judge John Pickering became the first person convicted by the Senate. He was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1803 for misconduct as a judge and for intoxication. He was impeached and convicted under the same constitutional law that all Presidents have been impeached under.
Typically, there has been no constitutional crisis associated with Articles of Impeachment. I have to repeat this because there seems to be the notion that you must wait for the constitutional crisis before you can initiate impeachment.
Typically, there has been no constitutional crisis associated with Articles of Impeachment, although a constitutional crisis can exist without any crime having been committed.
An authoritarian does not have to commit a codified statutory offense to be impeached. I raise this point because there are many people who are of the opinion that there must be some statutory, criminal law that has been violated before one can be impeached. That is not the case, not the case at all.
The constitutional law that authoritarian President Trump would have Congress use to impeach a Federal judge for ruling against him, that would be Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, is the same law that has been used and can be used to impeach him again for making his threats to democracy a reality. I will use that law again.
Former President Gerald Ford was right--he was right then and now-- when he proclaimed that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history. Whatever a majority of the House of Representatives consider it to be at a given moment in history.
For edification purposes, the Members of the House who vote on impeachment are not given any instructions, as you might expect a jury to be given. No one can tell them what the definition is such that they must honor what they are told. People can suggest but, ultimately, they are the judges of what impeachment is, and the standard that they use they need not reveal to anyone.
Waiting for a constitutional crisis to impeach can be the forerunner to tanks on American streets. Acting now, with my single vote to impeach, can function as a wake-up call to impeach as well as deter an authoritarian President and avert a constitutional crisis.
I believe in the power of one. I believe that one person can make a difference. I believe that one person who has the ability to take a stand to make a difference, I believe that that one person should.
Acting now, as was done before, can also become a part of the genesis of a public movement similar to that which led to authoritarian Donald Trump's prior impeachments and defeat at the polls in 2020, the Presidential election year when he was defeated.
I said acting now could become the genesis of a public movement. That is the movement that my good friends with Free Speech for People have initiated, the movement that people across the country are engaged in and talking about.
I don't claim that what we are doing tonight is the genesis. I think it is a part, but I don't think it is the genesis. As such, I would say to persons who would tell me: Well, he won't run again, why would you impeach? To them, I would say: Because he doesn't have to have another term within this term of office. I believe that he can be impeached for what he has done immediately. Whether he will be or not will be a decision for this Congress, but I believe that he can be and should be. Although he won't run again, Members of Congress who aid and abet America's devolution into authoritarianism will. This bears repeating as well.
Although he won't run again, Members of Congress who aid and abet America's devolution into authoritarianism will. I have not asked nor will I ask any Members of Congress to stand with me. I encourage all Members to vote their conscience.
As for me, I stand where I have always stood on the question of impeachment which, of course, is a question of conscience for me. Because it is a question of conscience, even when the odds are against me, my position is, it is better for me to stand alone than not stand at all. If I have to, it won't be the first time.
I believe that it is a question of conscience because it impacts the entire country. It impacts the lives of people within the country. The act that would bring us to the point of impeaching is something that impacts society in a negative way, impacts the lives of people in an adverse way. I believe this is a question of conscience. Because I believe it is a question of conscience, I don't tell others how they should conduct themselves, and I have not had any Members tell me how I should conduct myself. I believe that how I conduct myself in terms of trying to do what I perceive to be the right thing is something that is between me and my conscience.
As a Member of Congress, I consider these actions by authoritarian President Trump harmful to society and impeachable: condoning the flouting of Federal court orders, flouting the separation of powers, undermining the independence of the Federal judiciary, and flouting the constitutional mandate of due process, all of which have devolved our democracy into authoritarianism.
I opposed authoritarian President Donald Trump's behavior that made him a threat to our democracy prior to his election and have witnessed that threat become a reality. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience fail to take action that the Constitution provides to protect the American people.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., addressed such questions of conscience when he proclaimed cowardice will ask the question when you are confronting these questions of conscience. This is what he said, ``Cowardice asks the question, `Is it safe?''' Is this the safe thing for me to do? Can I get hurt physically by doing this? Is it safe for me to traverse my neighborhood, to move across the country? Is it safe for me to do it? Cowardice asks this question.
He goes on to say, ``Expediency asks the question, `Is it politic?''' Is this good for politics? Will this help me to ascend to some lofty position or will this bring me down? Will this be something that can hurt my career? This is what Dr. King is saying: ``Is it politic?''
Madam Speaker, then he said: ``Vanity asks the question: `Is it popular?'''
Will I lose the smiles that I am greeted with? Will the people who normally carry on conversations avoid me? Will they seek to make me a pariah simply because I have done what I believe to be right? I am not telling anybody else what they must do.
This is what Dr. King was saying. Is it popular?
Then, he goes on to say that conscience asks the question, and I say this is the ultimate question: ``But conscience asks the question: `Is it right?' ''
Then, he closes with the crescendo: ``There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular.''
One must take it because conscience dictates, and conscience tells one that it is right. I understand that my stance may be neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but I honor the wisdom of Dr. King and take my stance because my conscience says it is right.
It is not unusual for the U.S. House of Representatives to vote multiple times before passing important legislation. Although the first vote is not always the victorious vote, it is not always the final vote. It can be a foundational vote. It can be the vote that can lay the predicate for things to come.
I have filed and will make H. Res. 415, the Articles of Impeachment, available to the press, the public, and all who would desire to know what is contained herein.
I will call for a vote to impeach authoritarian Donald John Trump at a time to be determined, knowing that the American people don't expect me to always win. I am going to elaborate on this before I finish this sentence.
The American people don't expect me--I don't speak for anybody else. This is my belief. I don't believe that the American people expect me to always win. They do want to know that on the great issues of my time, when there was great challenge and controversy, they want to know where I stood and where I stand.
They want to know: Am I willing to fight for the people whom I represent? Am I willing to take a stand for people I will never meet and greet but do it because it is not only the right thing but the righteous thing?
Madam Speaker, the American people don't expect me to always win. I sometimes measure my friendships by the people who are willing to fight, fight even when the odds are against you, fight even when you know that you are not likely to be victorious.
I think there is something about people who are willing to take up a cause
I may not win, but I will know that I took a stand for righteousness and that I made a difference. Maybe not at that moment, but in the long run, the difference will be made.
The American people don't expect me to always win. However, I do believe they expect me to always fight, and I don't mean in a pugilistic fashion with fisticuffs. I mean to stand up and be counted on the great issues of my time and their time, our time, on the issues that confront the Nation and, indeed, the world.
I am honored that the American people have allowed me to have this position. I am not going to allow posterity to look back upon my tenure in Congress and say that when we had the opportunity--or I had the opportunity--to take a stand for justice even when it might cost me a career, cause me a lack of popularity, cause me a lack of safety. I want people to know that I took the stand that could make a difference.
Madam Speaker, I want my friends to know that I appreciate all of them who have stood with me over this journey. I want my staff to know that I appreciate them greatly for standing with me. In fact, we stand together.
I have a great staff. I have people who are committed not to work. They are committed to a cause. They are committed to the cause that we extoll when we say the Pledge of Allegiance: liberty and justice for all.
They are committed to a cause of making sure that we maintain government of the people, by the people, for the people.
They are committed to a cause that says William Cullen Bryant is right, that truth crushed to Earth shall rise again. They understand that when we do these things, people will say bad things and ugly things. They understand that truth crushed to Earth shall rise again. This is a great staff.
They appreciate Carlyle. They appreciate his wisdom when he said that no lie can live forever. Let them say what they may. Let others do what they may. We will do what we must and take a stand for liberty and justice for all.
I have a great team, and I want them to know how much I appreciate and thank them for what they do. This morning, I had two members of my team come in at 8 o'clock a.m. Some would say that is not really early, but it is when they are still with me at this hour, after 7 o'clock, nearly 7:30. They are still over in the office, working. I have a great team. I thank my team.
I also thank the people who serve right here on the floor. I thank all of them for their kindness, courtesy, and willingness to help persons who are trying to find their way. I thank the court reporters and the clerks.
I thank the Parliamentarian for being a person who is true to his mission. He sides neither with Democrats nor Republicans, nor anybody, but always gives us the information as the rules permit him to provide it. I thank him and all the people in that office.
Madam Speaker, I thank you. This, for me, is a historic moment. I thank you for the time that I have.
To the persons who work in the cloak room, let me not forget them. They are always gracious and kind. I thank all of you and the Sergeant at Arms.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Madam Speaker, I think it is important that the Chair and the public know that there are always debates going on in this building that will determine how the big, beautiful bill is sent to President Trump.
One of those debates involves the State and local tax deduction.
Another of the debates, which hasn't been as highlighted, involves President Trump's proposal to reduce the marginal rate on manufacturing to 15 percent. President Trump is, rightly, obsessed with America being the world leader in manufacturing.
Another one of the debates is what we should do to encourage Americans to have more children, and President Trump has proposed a $5,000 credit for people having children. I think that might not be quite right. I personally prefer a new $5,000 exemption. Nevertheless, there is no time in life when people are more financially strapped than when they have young children.
I am strongly opposed to the so-called SALT Caucus of people who desperately want to have a greater deduction for State and local taxes. These people are, as a practical matter, looking to encourage their Governors, their school boards, and their county boards to raise local taxes.
Last weekend, when I was home, a conservative county executive in my district begged me not to increase the deduction for property taxes. He is a conservative and does not want to have the liberals on his county board make the case that it would be great if all of our property taxes and income taxes were tax deductible so we could raise taxes.
I am sure right now, particularly in the more liberal States--places like California with Governor Newsom, places like New York--the Governors and State legislators are waiting to see if they can increase the deduction for State income taxes and for local property taxes, so they can spend more money.
We have to realize that if the SALT Caucus succeeds, there will be less money available here to lower the income tax on manufacturing, as President Trump tries to bring back American manufacturing jobs from China, Korea, and Mexico.
We will not have the money available to do eventually what I would like to do, and that is have a $5,000 personal exemption to help out young couples who are just starting out, so they have more income at a time in their lives when they need it more than anybody else.
I strongly encourage our negotiators to turn back the people who want a big State and local tax deduction, even though Wisconsin is a mildly high tax State.
Madam Speaker, I think encouraging any more taxes anywhere in the country hurts us all as it slowly takes away the freedoms of people in America and makes America more of a country that you would not want to move to start new manufacturing. That is one of the things that is going on in this building.
The next topic to take up--and I am kind of disappointed we didn't deal with it like we should have in our proposed big, beautiful bill, but I know President Trump's team is concerned about this. It is the degree to which so many of our welfare programs are designed to discourage people from getting married.
We know that people who get married and have children--well, all types of families have successful children. I personally know many people who, on their own, both men and women, have done a very good job of raising children we would be proud of. In the long run, it is not fair to the next generation to discourage people from getting married and having children.
Right now, there are many Federal programs. They used to be called food stamps, low-income housing, Medicaid, which is healthcare for the poor, and Pell grants. All of these programs are designed to penalize young couples who get married.
Madam Speaker, if you are a single parent, then you may be eligible for all of these programs. If you are married, then you may be eligible for none of the programs.
I think the most generous of the group is low-income housing, or Section 8 vouchers, whatever. In any event, it is not unusual to look up a hypothetical in which if a woman marries say the father of her children, she will lose $25,000 to $30,000 a year.
This is why since the Great Society in the 1960s we have gone from a situation in which in the fifties, 4 percent of the children in this country were born out of wedlock. Now we are in a position in which we have over 40 percent of the children in the country who are born out of wedlock. It did not happen by accident. It happened because the Great Society programs in the 1960s were designed to encourage this sort of behavior.
Madam Speaker, you may say, who wants to discourage people who are married from having children?
In fact, Karl Marx, of course, was very opposed to the traditional family. We have known since I have been here.
Black Lives Matter made it clear that they were opposed to what they referred to as ``the Western-prescribed nuclear family.'' Of course, even after Black Lives Matter came out for that, it did not prevent many of our Members, particularly on the Democrat side of the aisle, from standing with Black Lives Matter, a group opposed to the nuclear family.
We know that many of the feminists in the sixties, I think Kate Millett, who was described as the mother of women's studies classes, which are all over our universities, were outright opposed to the nuclear family.
It is disappointing they are not doing more in this budget to address that problem, to stop encouraging young people not to be married. We all by now have run into young couples who may even want to be married, but they won't get married because they lose $20,000 or $25,000 a year.
Indeed, in this program, we are expanding the Pell Grant program. It is a program that was one of these things that has a marriage penalty associated with it.
We are expanding the low-income housing tax credits. While some of those credits do not come with a marriage penalty, particularly when coupled up with State programs that do have a marriage penalty, it is another program we are expanding and it is going in the wrong direction.
In any event, I encourage President Trump to do what is already going on behind the scenes, and that is to work towards, perhaps in our next reconciliation bill, a program to stop the hatred of the traditional family that is the marker of the Democratic Party today.
Again, I emphasize we have to look at every one of these programs: the earned income tax program, the Pell Grant program, the low-income housing program, and the Section 8 program. In general, all of the housing authorities have this hostility.
If America is ever going to truly become a great society again, then we have to work our way back up to where we were in the sixties and the fifties where we had 4 percent or 5 percent of the children born out of wedlock.
By the way, Madam Speaker, if you read historic experts on this topic, and I am talking about people like George Gilder, who is a very bright guy, a lot of times the person who is penalized the most when you set up a society without couples having children is, in fact, the man in the society who has no purpose in life.
As an Indian immigrant in my district told me: In America they have the woman marry the government.
Of course, I think society is better off if we have the woman marry the father of the children, not the government, like so many members of this conference want to do.
The next thing I want to look at, which we are going to be doing in the next few days, is we have a proposed reconciliation bill in front of us. I was under the impression that this bill would be an opportunity to decrease the amount of government programs, decrease the degree to which we have government programs controlling or directing Americans' lives.
One of those programs that I really don't like the more I talk to experts on the topic is something called low-income tax credits.
These low-income tax credits are given to property developers that are equal to 10 percent of the value of what they spend on new apartments for 9 years in a row. Now, there is a time value of money, but even given the time value of money, it means that the government is paying for 70 percent of some people's projects.
There are some requirements as to whom they rent these to, but the requirements are not stringent. Some people point out that they can almost take people at random in the street, and that would be enough to fill their housing units. It really doesn't do a lot to help the so- called low-income people.
It does help, however, because the government is giving so much money, it does encourage developers to spend far more than they would otherwise on their projects.
Why not make Cadillac projects if the government is going to spend or pay for 70 percent of those projects?
Furthermore, as we spend more on the projects, it is going to turn around and result in greater depreciation expense for the wealthiest banks in the country who frequently wind up buying the credits.
For something that should be a relatively simple transaction, once the States gets ahold of it, Madam Speaker, you can wind up with regulations of hundreds of pages that have to be negotiated when you begin running the projects, which obviously means a lot more money for the lawyers and much more difficulty for the politicians to understand exactly what is going on.
You would think, Madam Speaker, that of all the government programs this would be the easiest to get rid of because we are supposed to be broke. In fact, under our big, beautiful bill, and I know President Trump wants the most beautiful bill he can get on his desk, in this bill we are, in fact, expanding the number of tax credits, which is to say expanding the amount of money that the property developers on these projects are going to make.
We are increasing the amount of tax credits, and I am told a very high number will be going to the biggest five banks in the United States, tax credits the banks get.
Furthermore, because there are only so many new rental housing units we need, it expands, or they wind up crowding out the what I call legitimate developers and the legitimate users of low-income housing tax credits.
I would hope, as we put together, hopefully, the final version of the big, beautiful bill sometime in the next couple of weeks, we look at this. It is not something that costs nothing. It is currently costing us even under current law about $13.8 billion a year in tax credits which are going to these well-connected developers.
I think one thing that will also tell us that they are well-connected is it is up to States to distribute which property developers get the credits.
What do you think is going to happen?
It is going to be the same people who know the same bureaucrats, who are connected to the same politicians, who are going to get these credits again and again and again. Again, on the face of it, the idea that in the future in this country the people who build the apartments are going to be determined by State bureaucracies is just an invitation for trouble.
The fact that we are paying 70 percent, therefore, results in a situation given--some areas in California, in particular--we may be paying more than $95,000 a unit.
Does that make any sense at all if our goal is to create lots of new housing units for the so-called poor or working poor?
No. You would never do that, Madam Speaker, except for that is the way the property developers make more money.
In any event, I encourage our leadership team as they are looking for more money to seal the deal on this project, I don't think they have their 217 or 216 votes yet to grab that $13.5 billion.
Another thing I will point out, these credits have been around since the late 1980s, and people might wonder where they came from. I think they probably came from developers who found a way to snooker the poor U.S. Congressmen in the late eighties. At the time Congress felt something had to be done because we had just gotten done with the apparently increasing the depreciation schedules on new residential real estate. So in the early eighties, Madam Speaker, you could depreciate an apartment building in 15 years. When they changed it to 27\1/2\ years, it greatly reduced the number of new apartments that people were building and, therefore, it was easier to sell to Congress that one way to get more apartments online is to have these ridiculously overgenerous credits.
I don't know if I am going to have much of an impact. One of my goals is I would like to have the credits renamed. Instead of the low-income housing tax credits, name them the big banks, big law firms, and especially well-connected developer tax credits, because I think that would more accurately describe the people who benefit from these credits.
In any event, these are some of the issues that I think are going to be debated in the next few days.
I hope the press does a good job of covering what low-income housing tax credits really are.
I hope the press does a good job of setting before the American public, and particularly the Republican volunteers who did so much to get us here, laying out the differences between the tax cuts based on how high the property or sales taxes are, how high the local property taxes or State sales and income taxes are.
We will see how our base feels about who we should reward or what type of behavior we should encourage through the tax code.
Should we encourage people to have more children?
Should we encourage people to work harder?
Should we encourage businesses to make more manufacturing jobs?
Or should we encourage local governments to raise taxes?
Finally, in the future as we determine how we are going to build new apartments, should we encourage the builders of the apartments to go through the government accepting lavish tax credits?
Or should we do it the way we always have in America, and that is let the free market win out?
The idea that we cannot build apartment buildings is, on its face, preposterous. I know everywhere right now, be it single family or multifamily, the costs are way too high.
I would hope that the Speaker would maybe put together a committee or a subcommittee to see what we can do to lower those costs. I am told it is possible to lower the costs, and the answer is not paying developers 70 percent of the cost of their project.
