REFINER Act

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I begin today with a story. Once upon a time in Congress, House Republicans put forward their top agenda, a package of bills so crucial, so urgent, that teeing them up for consideration was one of the very first things we did on the floor of this Congress-- after, of course, Kevin McCarthy's 15 votes for Speaker.

Tucked into this package was a little bill about supporting the police, H. Con. Res. 5, a simple, nonbinding resolution, really, that didn't do much. It was purely symbolic, but it did express support for our Nation's police, all of our Nation's police.

But something mysterious happened, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will join me in trying to solve that mystery today.

Instead of bringing their bill up right away, Republicans waited, and they waited, and they waited. They waited until this week, and they brought up a bill, but something changed. See, in the original bill, the language read that Congress expresses support for the Nation's law enforcement agencies.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, ``Nation's,'' ``Nation's.'' It was about all of our police. In their new bill, the one that we are considering today, they only express support for local enforcement officers.

Here is the new bill, Mr. Speaker. We see the word ``local,'' ``local''--nothing about our Nation's law enforcement officers, just ``local.'' Huh. That is weird. What a strange change.

It is National Police Week, but they took out all of our national police agencies. Democrats searched and searched and searched for a reason. We looked high and low in the Rules Committee, but we couldn't find an answer.

Not a single person, not one Republican, Mr. Speaker, has been able to articulate to us who made that change, when it was made, or, most importantly, why it was made.

No one was able to explain to us why Republicans edited their bill from saying ``any efforts to defund or dismantle law enforcement agencies'' to any ``efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies.''

Here is the important thing, and call it the moral of the story, if you will. The change was not without consequence because what the GOP did was cut out every officer at the FBI, ATF, CBP, U.S. Marshals Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Protective Service, and Secret Service. They cut out every officer at the United States Capitol Police. They cut out the police who are standing outside these Chamber doors right now, keeping us safe. They cut out all the police who rushed to this building to keep all of my GOP friends safe on January 6, 2021.

Apparently, our Republican colleagues think National Police Week shouldn't include our national police.

I wish I could say that this was an unsolved mystery, I really do, but the answer is obvious, Mr. Speaker. The new Republican position is that they only support some police.

The new Republican position as of 2 weeks ago is that they want to defund police. They voted to cut COPS grants, fire 400 local police officers, defund the FBI, and cut grant funding for State and local law enforcement agencies.

The new Republican position, as put forward by their frontrunner for President, is that we ought to pardon the convicted criminals, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis who beat cops, crushed them in doors, and hit them with fire extinguishers on January 6.

The new Republican position is to give George Santos due process before he is kicked out but to deport legal immigrants who haven't even been charged with a crime.

Here is what I see today, Mr. Speaker. It seems like Republicans back the blue until they realize that laws apply to them, too.

That gets me to my final point because an important change is happening here today, and I want law enforcement officers across this country to take note. I know many of them are watching because it is police week, National Police Week, and here is what I want them to know: Democrats want to keep communities safe.

Democrats want to address gun violence in our schools, an issue I hear from police officers about all the time.

Democrats want to invest in programs that keep our communities safe, programs that get to the root causes of crime.

Democrats want to make sure police aren't put in situations they aren't trained to handle.

Democrats have passed bills that protect our communities and support our police, bills to help cops with PTSD and to invest in small police departments.

Republicans want to wrap their arms around the police while they cut funding.

Make sure we don't forget this, Mr. Speaker: 21 Republicans voted against awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to the Capitol Police-- 21.

Republicans changed their bill to deliberately exclude America's national police agencies from National Police Week, which dishonors and disrespects the Capitol Police officers who protect our Capitol Building.

Republicans are using our law enforcement officers like political pawns. They are putting politics over public safety.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican friends have lost their way on law enforcement today, and it is clear who is in charge. It is not Speaker McCarthy. It is the most extreme of the extreme, and once again, the American people lose.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota if she could respond to a question that we couldn't get an answer to in the Rules Committee last night as to why Republicans did not bring up their original bill, H. Con. Res. 5, the one that they made in order with their opening day rules package.

I don't know whether she can explain it to me. I am happy to yield her some time to do that. The silence is deafening, Mr. Speaker, because the question that we asked in the Rules Committee last night that nobody could answer is, in their original bill we honored our entire Nation's law enforcement, including the Capitol Police, who protected us on January 6. However, the bill they bring up today changed all that and basically narrowed it down to local police but took out any recognition of our Capitol Police or any of our Federal law enforcement officers.

The gentlewoman will not answer the question. Nobody in the Rules Committee would answer the question.

To the gentleman from Pennsylvania who just spoke, who was talking about defunding the police, I will tell you, when I was the chairman of the Rules Committee, we didn't bring any resolutions to the floor to defund the police.

Two weeks ago, my Republican friends voted to cut money for local law enforcement and for our Federal law enforcement agencies. They are the ones who voted to defund the police. Just don't believe me; you can Google it. Check it out. Two weeks ago, their bill that they brought to the floor will cut law enforcement agencies.

Give me a break, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the idea that my Republican friends made a conscious decision to remove the Capitol Police from a resolution honoring our Nation's police is beyond the pale.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from the Department of Justice regarding the cuts proposed within the Republicans' debt limit bill.

My Republican friends are actively cutting funding from Federal law enforcement that work to protect us every day. Their plan would also cut funding for nearly 400 local law enforcement positions. I mean, Republicans cannot be serious about supporting law enforcement when they are actively using their majority to defund them.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Indiana began her remarks by talking about National Police Week, but the resolution doesn't honor our national police. The Republicans made a conscious decision to remove the Capitol Police, FBI, ATF, CBP, U.S. Marshals Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Protective Service, and the Secret Service. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana to help me understand why the Republicans changed the wording of their resolution. I am happy to yield her any time.

Mr. Speaker, again, the gentlewoman from Minnesota says we are playing word games. No, we are not. The only people playing word games are my Republican friends. They introduced a bill that honored all of our police, and then they changed it. They made a conscious decision to change it because I think they are afraid of the extreme of the extreme of their base that somehow don't want to admit that anything bad happened here on January 6, and they are afraid if they honor the Capitol Police that somehow their extreme base would be offended. That is just sick, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's responsibility to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are vital to many of our constituents' economic health security, and yet many of my Republican friends across the aisle have called for major cuts to these critical programs. Once again, I am offering my friends the opportunity to reassure the American people, not just with rhetoric but with their votes, that they will not cut these vital programs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say to the gentleman, again, the only people who in this Chamber voted to defund the police are my Republican friends. Two weeks ago, you all voted for a bill to cut money for local law enforcement, every one of you.

Let's talk about the police that you are not honoring here today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a CNN story about two FBI agents who were shot and killed last week, and yet they have been taken off the list of law enforcement officials that we are honoring.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the names of the law enforcement officers who died as a result of the Capitol riots: U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, U.S. Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood, D.C. Police Officer Jeffrey Smith, D.C. Police Officer Gunther Hashida, D.C. Police Officer Kyle DeFreytag.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to also include in the Record a CNN story about the 21 Republicans who voted ``no'' on a bill to award Congressional Gold Medals for the January 6 police officers.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York whatever time he needs, but I guess he left the floor. I would like somebody to explain to me why Republicans decided to change the wording of the bill that they introduced at the opening day session of Congress to exclude all of our Federal

police officers and exclude our Capitol Police.

I don't quite understand why they did that except I think they are afraid of their base, the extreme element of their base who basically do not want to honor them. I find that really disturbing.

Again, talking about defunding the police, the only people in this Chamber who voted to cut money for the police are on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman who just spoke neglected to say is he only wants to honor some of our police officers. They made a conscious decision to, quite frankly, remove our national police, our Capitol Police, from the resolution that they were originally included in.

He said don't believe us. Well, the words are here. This is their original bill: ``H. Con. Res. 5, Expressing support for the Nation's law enforcement agencies and condemning any efforts to defund or dismantle law enforcement agencies.'' Their new bill was changed to just say ``local law enforcement.''

They made a conscious decision to do that. The gentleman keeps on quoting, and there is an old saying that the only thing that really matters around here is votes. Everything else is B.S. We can play this game of quotes versus votes, but the bottom line is the votes are what matter and what matters the most.

My friends on the other side of the aisle 2 weeks ago brought a bill that they all voted for that cut money for law enforcement at every level. They voted for that. That is their record. I hope my friends will appreciate that.

As we honor our Nation's police officers, as we should, I have to say it is disappointing that we are only honoring some, that a conscious, deliberate decision was made to exclude others. I find that really, really disturbing, and, quite frankly, we tried to fix it last night in the Rules Committee. We tried to fix it in the Judiciary Committee, and all the Republicans voted it down.

I urge people to look at the votes. The votes are what matters.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman runs out, I will just say you can yell all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that my friends on the other side of the aisle, including the gentleman, voted to cut money for local law enforcement

Mr. Speaker, what they did is they voted to cut a million dollars per State

in Federal money for our local law enforcement. They would fire, lay off, 400 local police officers. That is what would happen if their bill that they voted on 2 weeks ago became law. It could cut COPS grants. It would cut other DOJ funding for our local police.

The gentleman who just had a meltdown on the floor, screaming and yelling, comes on the floor all the time to talk about our border. I mean, my Republican friends made a conscious decision to remove Customs and Border Protection from the bill honoring our law enforcement.

I would like somebody to answer why. They removed the Capitol Police. They removed the FBI. They also removed CBP.

Mr. Speaker, their bill, according to the Department of Justice, if it became a law, the reduction in support for our police and Federal law enforcement would result in a reduction in our operations equivalent to the following: 154,000 pounds of cocaine not seized, 859 pounds of fentanyl and 1,948 pounds of heroin not seized, 17,148 pounds of methamphetamine not seized, $9 million in currency not seized, 561 criminals not arrested, 57,594 apprehensions not made, and 361 people not rescued. The gentleman says he is being fiscally responsible, and that is why they voted for these cuts? Enough.

Again, can somebody please explain to me from the party that voted to defund the police why the omission, why were the words of the Republican bill changed to omit all of these other brave men and women who are protecting people all across this country and the Capitol Police who protect us every single day?

By the way, the gentleman who just spoke was among those who voted not to give a Congressional Gold Medal to the Capitol Police. Thank goodness 400 Members, Democrats and Republicans, disagreed with him.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from MSNBC titled: ``The list of Republicans open to `defunding' the FBI keeps growing.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I am concerned because, on the one hand, my Republican colleagues say they support the police. On the other hand, their own Members are calling on Congress to defund Federal law enforcement.

They want to defund the FBI. They want to defund ATF. They want to defund DOJ.

I guess it just shows that Republicans support only some of the police. In fact, there is a Member on the other side of the aisle who is selling ``Defund the FBI'' T-shirts on her web page.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked over and over and over again why the Republican bill was changed to exclude a whole bunch of law enforcement officers on the Federal level, including the Capitol Police. As those who are watching this debate saw, every time I wanted to yield to get an answer, there was silence.

Nobody can explain why this happened. Nobody will help us solve this mystery as to why they decided not to honor a whole bunch of our brave men

and women who protect us in so many ways all across this country. It is baffling to me that this is where we are.

I began by telling a story, and let me end with telling a story.

Mr. Speaker, I was here on January 6. I was in the Speaker's chair on January 6. I was the last person off the House floor. I saw everybody who was here in this Chamber, including some of my colleagues on the Republican side, cowering behind Capitol Police officers because they were afraid for their lives. It was a terrible, terrible day.

Luckily, nobody here was injured, none of us, none of the Members of Congress or our staff. The Capitol Police protected us that day. I mean, we owe them our lives.

Today, as we honor our national police, my Republican friends thought it was appropriate to remove them from the list of people being honored. I find that disgraceful.

I can't even imagine what the thinking was to make that kind of decision. It is so insulting and so offensive to the people who protected us that day and protect us each and every day. I don't understand that.

I can't get a response, but we know what is going on here. We know that they removed the Capitol Police and that they removed some of these Federal law enforcement agencies because they were afraid they were going to lose votes on their side, that some of their Members would not vote to honor all of our law enforcement officials. Let that sink in for a minute.

This should have been a day of unity. This should have been a truly bipartisan endeavor to get us legislation to the floor that everybody could support, that we could all say thank you to our police. But, no, it is politicized.

They get up here and start quoting people on defund the police, but they don't tell anybody that they voted to defund the police 2 weeks ago. It is public record. Every one of them did, including the gentleman who was down here screaming.

He gets on the floor all the time and talks about the need that we have to better protect our border, yet the people who are charged with protecting our border were removed from the list of people we were honoring.

This is not right by any measure. It is not right. I am so disappointed that my Republican friends have decided to politicize this.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can protect Social Security and Medicare, and I urge them to vote ``no'' on this rule.

This is beneath this institution. This is not honoring our police. This is politicizing our police. This is saying to some of our police that we don't value their service. It is saying to the Capitol Police that we don't value their service.

How dare anybody on the other side suggest that? How dare you bring a bill to the floor that does just that? This is sickening.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 398 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2494, the Protect Our Law enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement Act of 2023, or the POLICE Act; H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act; and H. Con. Res. 40, expressing support for local law enforcement officers and condemning efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies.

It provides for structured rules for all three bills and makes in order Democratic as well as Republican amendments.

Given all that our police officers do for our communities each and every day, I am honored to stand here in defense of this legislation to support them.

According to the FBI, assaults on law enforcement officers increased by 11.2 percent from 2020 to 2021. Many of these violent crimes have been committed by illegal aliens. As this administration continues to let the crisis at the border spiral out of control, these types of assaults will continue to increase.

There are things we can do to deter criminal assaults and protect our officers. The POLICE Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clearly state that the assault of a law enforcement officer is a deportable offense. If those who have been given the privilege of coming here cannot respect our laws or those who enforce them,

they should not enjoy the benefit of remaining in our country.

The second bill under consideration today, H.R. 3091, would allow law enforcement officers to buy retired and surplus military service weapons at fair market value, so long as the officer is in good standing with their employed agency. Under current law, Federal law enforcement agencies are required to destroy retired and unneeded firearms. The Fraternal Order of Police estimates that this wastes up to $8 million a year. This bill is a commonsense solution to save taxpayer dollars and support law enforcement officers.

Finally, H. Con. Res. 40 expresses Congress' support for local law enforcement officers and condemns efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies.

Unfortunately, because there are people out there, even some serving in Congress, who want to defund the police and want to continue the anti-law enforcement rhetoric, this bill is necessary.

In a time when police officers are regularly attacked for their profession, 2021 being the deadliest year in two decades for law enforcement officers, according to the FBI, it can never be stated enough that the U.S. Congress supports this country's police officers.

The brave men and women across this Nation who risk their lives every day need to know that we condemn any efforts to defund them, and we support them. They need to know that we stand with them and are here to do everything in our power to protect them in the way they protect and serve our communities. That is why I encourage my colleagues to stand with me and support these pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues not to make excuses about this legislation, not to say that it doesn't have this, it has this, or you changed this because they are playing word games.

The public is watching, and law enforcement officers are watching. Today, with your ``yes'' vote on this legislation, you can show your support for law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler).

Mr. Speaker, I have to mention again, we have legislation in front of us that will honor our law enforcement officers. When we go off on tangents and talk about what words are there and what words are not there, the simple fact is, a ``yes'' vote on this legislation will show our support for law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have a much easier way for the other side to deal with the debt ceiling. Instead of the procedural antics we are going through, maybe what they should do is encourage the President and the Senate leaders to get to the table and negotiate.

The House Republicans did their job. We passed a debt ceiling bill with spending cuts and an increase off of this floor. We have done our job. I think the real message here is National Police Week. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the support and respect for our law enforcement officers.

I just want to maybe bring it back to what we are really talking about. I, unfortunately, have had the unfortunate honor to have three officers lost in the line of duty in my area, and so I would remember those names: Officer Brian Klinefelter, Officer Tommy Decker, and Officer Josh Owen. Officer Owen was just a few weeks ago.

Present in the Capitol yesterday was Officer Arik Matson, who was shot 3 years ago in the line of duty and survived. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about the officers that we are honoring.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I am honored to be here today to support this rule and this legislation to make sure we honor our law enforcement and that we are moving forward.

This is a completely different agenda from the legislation that my Democratic colleagues were advancing at this time in the 117th Congress last year. By this time 2 years ago, Democrats had already passed legislation that would have removed qualified immunity for police officers acting in good faith, voted to restrict policing methods that keep officers safe, and supported investigations into departments that insinuated that police officers are racists and white supremacists.

Today, House Republicans are changing the narrative and standing up for law and order and for those who enforce it. If my Democratic colleagues don't think this matters, then they clearly are still not listening to what the law enforcement community needs.

Today, they have the opportunity to show their support for law enforcement.

The defund the police movement has been disastrous in the areas that have tried it, emboldening criminals. Cities like Minneapolis and San Francisco have seen dramatic increases in crime, and residents and businesses alike are fleeing in droves.

Crime is skyrocketing throughout the country, and the lack of respect for law enforcement in this country also means fewer people are willing to enter the profession. This needs to change, and we in Congress can pass legislation like the bills today that support our police officers and show them their sacrifices and services are appreciated.

It is time for leaders to stand up for law enforcement and stop the anti-police rhetoric. I ask my colleagues on the other side to join with us in supporting and honoring law enforcement by voting for this rule today and supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I support the underlying legislation, and I urge all Members to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, ``It wasn't an accident. Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist. Daunte Wright was met with aggression and violence. I am done with those who condone government-funded murder. No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can't be reformed.'' Thus said Congresswoman Tlaib who was just down here talking about this.

Congresswoman Omar: ``You can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root.''

That is the truth of what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think about law enforcement. The gentleman from Massachusetts is down here besmirching the 21 Members of our body who said no to the politicization of the Capitol Police.

You want to know why it is not in here? It is because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to turn the Capitol Police into political pawns. That is the truth.

We had a resolution in the last Congress, H.R. 1085--I voted for it-- giving a Congressional Gold Medal to the brave men and women of the Capitol Police who stood here on January 6.

Then my colleagues on the other side of the aisle didn't want to leave it there. They then added another resolution a mere 2 months later when they wanted to play politics. They are playing political games.

Instead of honoring our men and women of law enforcement, Democrats played political games on a different tragedy, April 2, 2021, when Officer Billy Evans was killed and Officer Kenneth Shaver was injured by a man obsessed with the Nation of Islam who slammed his vehicle into the north barricade of the U.S. Capitol complex. That didn't fit the narrative. That didn't fit the narrative of my Democratic colleagues, seeing they want to be able to come down here and make claims that they are not defunding the police, that we are. Because we dare to stand up and say we should have fiscal responsibility and set a top-line cap, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to besmirch Republicans for cutting all manners of programs.

Yet, they bring no solutions to the American people about ending the $32 trillion in debt, destroying the dollar, causing inflation, undermining jobs, and destroying our country. They know exactly what they are doing, and they are doing it on purpose.

We are going to stand with the men and women in blue across this country. That is what this resolution is about. It is about standing with them, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent every waking moment undermining them, saying we should defund them when there were riots on the streets and our cities were burning to the ground. My Democratic colleagues didn't care. They allowed it to happen. They knew exactly what they were doing. That is what this is about.

I would add this: My father carries a card around with him. He is 80 years old. That card was given to him by his father, a chief of police of a small west Texas town. It is called: ``Jackie: `The Son of a Hard Boiled Cop.'''

You think I'm a hard-boiled copper

For writing a mere ``forty-three'';

Well perhaps I'm thinking of Jackie

And all the lad meant to me.

How's that? Tell you all about it?

Well, stranger, the boy was my son.

Mr. Speaker, and I continue:

God! What I'd give to hear, ``Daddy,''

Once more when the day's work is done.

The driver was just in a hurry,

He didn't intend any harm,

But the Sun and stars quit shining,

When I picked up my boy's lifeless form.

Well, mister, I'll tear up this ticket;

I don't want to ``pinch'' anyone;

But I'd ride this motor through hell-fires

To protect another man's son.

So the next time you feel like speeding

Or passing a boulevard stop,

Just pause and remember my Jackie--

The son of a hard-boiled cop.

My dad carries that with him to this day, and he is 80 years old. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to play politics with cops, they can do it on somebody else's dime.

Mr. Speaker, this National Police Week is a special one for me as a new Member of Congress.

I promise to always protect our police officers, just as they protect our communities back home. Regardless of which side of the aisle you are on, on that we should all agree.

It is important that the American people see us supporting law enforcement as we debate a vote on this

week's police bills and throughout the 118th Congress.

The legislation provided for in this rule are commonsense measures including: Allowing law enforcement officers to purchase retiring service weapons, making assaulting a law enforcement officer a deportable offense, and stating clearly that we appreciate the dedication of the men and women of law enforcement.

There is no better message than showing our officers, ``We are behind you.'' I know law enforcement officers in southern Indiana and across the State who are listening right now and would appreciate it.

I am in awe of the incredible work they do to keep us safe, as they agree to take the oath to protect and serve, knowing that does not guarantee them a safe return to their family at the end of the day. I saw the true weight of this when I visited the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial last Thursday. The memorial displayed name after name after name of those who didn't return home. Too many names.

One of those names of fallen officers was Officer Benton Bertram from Charlestown, Indiana. To see his name surrounded by so many selfless, brave heroes puts it in perspective. They didn't run from danger; they ran toward it.

With unwavering gratitude, we won't forget their sacrifice. This is just the start of why it is so important we act this week on the House floor.

As an Indiana State senator, I fought for and secured a pay raise for our State police officers. Many of them thanked me. I always responded; it was the least we could do for their service.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to take advantage of every opportunity to support the police and all law enforcement officers and will actively seek out opportunities to work with anyone willing to provide our officers with the resources and the support they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, my message to the police officers in southern Indiana is: Know you always have a fighter for you here on the House floor, in House committee rooms, and here in Congress. God bless our men and women in blue.

Mr. Speaker, our residents sent us to Congress to tackle the issues that are affecting every American's ability to thrive. They did not send us here to waste valuable time on messaging bills that are dead on arrival in the Senate and do nothing to improve the lives of working families.

We are weeks, possibly days, away from Republicans hurtling our economy toward a devastating default on our debt for the first time in our Nation's history, and Republicans are heartlessly using the crisis as an opportunity to try to force cruel cuts to the social safety nets for our communities, especially our veterans, who depend on healthcare.

Republicans are putting vital public programs like Social Security and Medicare at risk by playing petty political games to appease their billionaire donors and harm the lives and livelihoods of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, defaulting on our debt would be devastating, if not catastrophic, for all those relying on Social Security and Medicare, as you know, in all of our districts. Social Security recipients would no longer receive checks, risking their ability to pay for groceries, rent, and utilities.

This is exactly the type of chaos many of my Republican colleagues want to see happen, but Democrats are fully committed to protecting and expanding Social Security. Social Security is the bedrock of our social safety net and a pillar that all of our neighbors rely on, again, to be able to retire with dignity.

Unfortunately, as the cost of things like healthcare, caregiving, and prescription drugs has skyrocketed due to the unchecked corporate greed in our country, our seniors have come to rely even more on Social Security every single day.

Mr. Speaker, now more than ever before is the time to strengthen Social Security. If we defeat the previous question, we will bring to the House floor H. Res. 178, a resolution affirming the House's commitment to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare.

Republicans need to stop wasting our time and playing games with the lives of our people. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can advance this important legislation.