A resolution regarding violence against law enforcement officers.

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

Mr. Speaker, on August 29, 2002, two deputy sheriffs in Prince George's County, Elizabeth Magruder and James Arnaud, were ambushed in the home of the shooter's family. They had been called to the house to execute a warrant, a health warrant, because the parents were concerned about the erratic behavior of their son.

Elizabeth Magruder was shot in the back of the head, and James Arnaud was shot and killed, as well. He left behind a wife, two children, and two grandchildren. She left behind a husband and a 3-year-old son.

I had just been elected State's attorney in Prince George's County, but I hadn't even been sworn in yet. One of my first duties was to attend the funerals for both of them. My first memorial service during Police Week was in their honor.

Therefore, I take this very seriously. The National Police Week commemoration, I think, is something that is very grave, and we should treat it with great respect.

Unfortunately, ambushes like the one Magruder and Arnaud faced that day haven't ended. We just saw recently the ambush in Charlotte. Four officers were killed, and eight were shot. We have had others like that all over the country.

My thought when we had Police Week approaching was that we would approach this in a bipartisan manner. I actually reached out and worked with Congressman Hunt from Texas, and we put together a bill that was aimed at expanding the number of police officers because we know that there are shortages across the country. We know that we need to increase the pipeline so that more officers will come and take on these dangerous tasks and stand in harm's way, or stand in the gap, as the pastor said this morning.

It was a bipartisan effort. It came out of the committee by voice vote. It was passed on the floor in a similar capacity. The Senate companion bill was passed, as well. We are looking forward to that becoming the law of the land in short order.

Unfortunately, much of the legislation that has come after that has been anything but bipartisan. The legislation we are speaking to today, I am afraid, falls into that category.

When I took a look at the resolution, H. Res. 1213, I had hoped to see praise go out to our officers across the country for the work that they do and for the officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. Indeed, there are paragraphs that speak to that. Unfortunately, there are passages that don't.

My colleague from Virginia and his comments a few moments ago made some of the same kinds of comments, with respect to, for example, the defund the police argument. My Republican colleagues have concluded that ``defund the police,'' a phrase that was used several years ago, is somehow fueling the rise of crime and, in this particular instance, the death and attacks against police officers.

As I just went into a moment ago, Magruder and Arnaud were killed in 2002, over 20 years ago. We know we have been seeing deaths of officers in the line of duty for decades now. It is nothing new. To kind of casually blame it on a slogan that I am not aware of anybody in the body here today who espoused that--certainly, I didn't--to pretend that that is the reason these shootings or these killings are occurring, is, I think, unfortunate and an abuse of what this week is supposed to mean.

Now, in addition, I would say this: I just mentioned that I don't know that anybody supports the defund the police slogan from a few years ago, but we do have colleagues in the House right now, a House Republican, who has a bill, H.R. 374, to defund ATF, and we have House Republican colleagues who called for the defunding of the FBI.

The irony of that, as those of us who have worked in law enforcement know--I was a prosecutor for 12 years, 4 on the Federal level, 8 as the locally elected State's attorney--the local and Federal prosecutors work together all the time. It is critical. Sometimes they work together in task forces because they can bring the local, the State, and the Federal forces to bear and provide maximum support in protecting our communities.

Unfortunately, this piece of legislation and much of the legislation that has been discussed this week that has been offered by my Republican colleagues intentionally ignores Federal law enforcement. In fact, we had one that was marked up in my committee, the Judiciary Committee, where I offered an amendment to include Federal law enforcement. It was expressly rejected on a party-line vote by my Republican colleagues.

I have to say that the FBI, ATF, and Border Patrol put their lives on the line, too. We should respect them, as well. One of the reasons I can't support this legislation is that it really is disrespectful to those Federal officers.

The other is that, back to the defund police issue, there is a recognition in the legislation where it talks about the number of officers who died in the line of duty in 2021, 2022, and 2023. I can talk about the specific numbers in a moment when we move forward in the debate, but one provision actually notes that 378 law enforcement officers were shot in the line of duty in 2023. The one common thread between the vast majority of officers who have been killed in the line of duty, like Arnaud and Magruder, like the people who were ambushed in Charlotte, like most of the people with the names on the wall just a few blocks away from here, is they were shot.

Sadly, my Republican colleagues are unable, unwilling, un-something to take a step to address that gun violence. The resolution here speaks in terms of defunding the police as the cause of their deaths, but all of us know that the greatest threat that these officers face is not being stabbed to death. It is not being beaten to death with a slogan like defund the police. It is being shot to death.

Briefly, these are numbers from the cops working with the National Fraternal Order of Police. A total of 331 law enforcement officers were shot in the line of duty during calendar year 2022 in 267 separate shooting incidents, including 42 incidents where multiple officers were shot.

I appreciate the fact that we are going to offer resolutions to praise officers, but if we are really serious about protecting them, it is hard to ignore a data point like that. Yet, our officers have to go out there knowing that they face these threats all the time. Traffic stops are particularly dangerous, but sometimes, like for Arnaud and Magruder, officers can be ambushed in a home. Sometimes, like in Charlotte, they can be ambushed in the open air.

Taking that seriously, I think, is an important piece, yet the resolution doesn't even mention it.

I will say this, and then I will take a pause here for a moment, but there is legislation pending right now in the House of Representatives. I offered one, an assault weapons ban. I figured it might be a bridge too far for me to ask my Republican colleagues to cosponsor that, so I came up with a bill. It is called the Raise the Age Act, and it would elevate the age from 18 to 21 to purchase assault weapons.

I thought that would be a reasonable bill to offer because there was already a provision in the law for handguns. You had to be 21 to purchase a handgun. I believe that was put in place during the Reagan era.

For my bill, raising it to 21, since you have to be 21 to buy alcohol, I thought it might make sense to be 21 to buy an assault weapon, as well.

I think we have 171-plus cosponsors for that bill, but none of them are Republican, not one, even though Republicans had agreed to legislation similar to that in previous years.

I will speak to you in a moment about the resources issue, as well. In the 117th Congress, Democrats supported legislation to provide equipment to police officers. We will get into the particular numbers of that in a moment, but none of that is moving forward here in the House now, and none of it is certainly moving forward in Police Week.

I want to point out one little factoid from the COPS document that I mentioned before. It is under the heading Bullet Resistant Vests:

At least 34 officers were protected from gunshots that

struck a protective ballistic vest.

Yet, we are struggling to find a way to provide additional support and equipment for officers to help them stay safe on the street. That is what we ought to be doing during Police Week, and to the extent we are going to talk in terms of resolutions in support of officers, let's strip out the political nonsense. The defund the police stuff really has no place in helping to protect police officers and make them safe.

As I mentioned a moment ago, it is a slap in the face the way these legislative provisions have been proposed to always exclude Federal law enforcement. I know you guys have issues on the other side about some of them, but I think this isn't the time or the place to express it in that way. Federal law enforcement deserves the same kind of respect, the same kind of appreciation, the same kind of protection that local and State law enforcement officers do.

I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. We have had other resolutions that have come through before, and we have urged them to oppose them, as well. I am going to urge my colleagues on the other side after this vote is over--and you are in the majority, so you can move this kind of stuff whether it really makes a difference or not. Hopefully, after we get past this moment, we can actually sit down and get back to the type of legislation that I worked on with Congressman Hunt that can really make a difference to help make police officers safer, to help get more police officers on the street, and to praise all of them for the great work that they do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have got to say that I am deeply shocked and offended by the statements that were just made, especially regarding me, but the larger context, too.

The gentleman from Minnesota read a quote that he attributed to me, and it is a statement I made, but it was about the killing of Tyre Nichols.

Tyre Nichols was the gentleman in Tennessee who was beaten to death over a period of 10 to 15 minutes by I believe it was six police officers. In fact, I remember watching the video, and there were multiple videos because they had different angles. One of the officers who had been beating him got tired and stepped away so he could catch his breath and then came back to continue beating him.

I had never seen anything like it. I was shocked.

I had cases when I was the State's attorney where police officers used excessive force, and I prosecuted those cases. In some cases, we convicted those individuals.

I guess my colleague from Minnesota thought that the beating death of Mr. Nichols was good policing, but keep something in mind. The chief of the police of that department fired those officers because he recognized that that had crossed the line that good police officers recognize and follow every day, under every circumstance, and in every situation.

I thought that is what we were going to honor this Police Week. To sort of hold up the Tyre Nichols scenario as an example of what police officers are supposed to be doing during Police Week is insane. I can't believe it, but that is what the gentleman did.

Let me say this. It is important for us to make sure that we walk and chew gum at the same time. We want to honor good policing, for sure, because every community needs it. We need police officers who go out and respond to calls for robberies, shootings, or whatever. We need detectives who respond in homicide and rape prosecutions and investigations at the local, State, and Federal levels. We definitely need it, but even they have recognized over time that the bad apples, and the ones in Tyre Nichols' case were clearly not just bad apples but about as bad as you can get, have to be separated out because it is important for the police to police themselves. I know it is hard, but we have to make sure that they do it.

The gentleman mentioned body cameras a moment ago. Guess why we have body cameras. That was one of the innovations that was made to address excessive force. Guess what. One of the things that has led to is better policing.

When I first ran for State's attorney in Prince George's County, one of the issues I ran on was videotaping interrogations, and I wrote an op-ed. It was titled ``Safeguards for the Innocent.'' I was joined by the former head of the homicide unit here in Washington, D.C. We wrote it together.

The reason we wrote it was because we knew that if these investigations were videotaped, it would address the flurry of false confessions that had been made in Prince George's County. We knew they were false because they were proven to be innocent by DNA evidence. We knew they were false confessions, so we made this change to try to address that.

Guess what happened. Initially, the police officers opposed it, but the good detectives realized quickly that the videotapes showed the great work that they were doing and that they were going about it the right way. The juries appreciated that, too, because then we could just bring it in, set up the video, play the tape, and the jurors could see for themselves and make their decision. That is good policing.

I think it is important for us to make sure that we hold police officers, just like we do prosecutors or any other law enforcement profession, to a basic level of following the law even as they try to protect us from misconduct.

I guess this is kind of par for the course now for my Republican colleagues. On the January 6 piece, for example, we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are calling the perpetrators of January 6, the rioters of January 6, hostages and patriots. The majority is calling the people who participated in it patriots, the ones who had been prosecuted, convicted, and jailed. Even though I think over 900 of them pled guilty, others were convicted after jury trials.

They have had their day in court. They have had their due process. They were rightly convicted and held accountable. They have been sentenced to jail, but we still have my colleagues on the other side of the aisle calling them patriots and hostages, even though five officers died as a result of January 6 and many others were injured, too.

Mr. Speaker, this is Police Week, and I am hoping that we can get back to trying to do things in a bipartisan way here, but based on what I heard from my colleague from Minnesota, that is not likely to happen.

It is important to make sure that we do this: We have to make sure that we recognize the challenges we face in law enforcement. I support law enforcement, as I mentioned earlier. We have legislation to try to increase the number of police officers who are going to be out there on the street because we need more police officers on the street. The George Floyd Act, which was referenced, I think, a minute ago, is aimed at making sure that, in addition to having more on the street, they do the job in the right way.

When I first got elected, we didn't have iPhones very often. We would prosecute these cases and present the evidence to the jury in excessive force cases, and many times, the jury would reject it.

One of the transformations that happened with the iPhone, though, was that people, standing there on the street while excessive force was taking place, videotaped it, and then they were able to bring that to the police. Additionally, cases that probably wouldn't have been charged previously were not only charged but led to convictions.

The George Floyd scenario, the person who that legislation is named after, is a paradigm example. Derek Chauvin was there with his knee on George Floyd's neck for 9\1/2\ minutes. The police report that Derek Chauvin and his other colleagues on the street filled out made no mention of all of that, but the videos made it clear that Derek Chauvin had basically just strangled him to death with his knee. He was held accountable, and the other officers around him, who basically did nothing while it was happening, were held accountable, too.

Maybe my colleague from Minnesota had that in mind when he made some of the statements he just said a few minutes ago. I sure hope not because officers who do that belong in jail. They shouldn't have a badge, a gun, and a license to kill. That has to be given to the people we can trust to enforce the law in the right way.

For the vast majority of police officers, that is how they do it, and that is why we appreciate and respect them. When they cross the line, I hope we don't have people like the gentleman from Minnesota act like that is okay because it is not. We have to hold them accountable.

A minute ago, I mentioned serious legislation. It is a little surprising to me that we are having such a debate like this over legislation that is just a resolution basically. It speaks only of defund the police and the like.

The Democrats in the last Congress, for example, passed meaningful reforms to support police even though, in many instances, they were opposed by Republicans. Last Police Week, we passed H.R. 6943, the Public Safety Officer Support Act, which extended death benefits to law enforcement officers with PTSD. It happened over the objection of 17 Republicans, including 4 on the Judiciary Committee.

Last Police Week, H.R. 2992, the Traumatic Brain Injury and Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder Law Enforcement Training Act, passed, as well. Twenty-one Republicans objected to that also.

We keep passing legislation, or we did when the Democrats were in control, to actually provide additional resources and benefits to police officers who get injured in the line of duty. I think that is important for us to continue to do, but our colleagues aren't doing it.

Republicans are bringing this political legislation, and it got really political a minute ago when the gentleman from Minnesota was up there, frankly, kind of ranting about things he attributed to me, which I think was wrong and incorrect, but, more importantly, things the gentleman keeps trying to attribute to Democrats and the change in policy.

Mr. Speaker, here are a couple of other quick points about some of the things my colleague said, like the decline in police officers. I have to be clear. One of the things we have in the bill I cosponsored with Mr. Hunt was a report that is going to study this because I think it is going to help address a lot of the misinformation that is coming out on the other side about why we are having some shortages.

They are saying it is based on the defund the police slogan, but the roots of these shortages started many years ago. In some instances, in some jurisdictions, we just have a cycle of people who are coming up for their retirements at their 20-year and 30-year marks. In any event, let's try to make sure we get the evidence and the data so we can correct those challenges.

It is not just fixing a slogan on the street. It is a dangerous job. It doesn't pay as much as it should. Many of the officers or potential officers find that they can have jobs that pay as much but don't have to work as hard. For example, in a Homeland Security Committee hearing, I remember the Border Patrol agents testifying that they are having trouble retaining officers at the border, not because of a defund the police slogan but because they can leave the job and make more money doing other things and stay in the same community, and it is less taxing than being an officer.

If we are honest about it, we can come up with better solutions to try to retain them, like maybe paying them more money, but if we keep spreading rhetoric about this is defund the police, we won't fix the problem and get more officers.

If money is the issue, and of course it is a factor, then just standing here and haranguing about defunding the police doesn't fix it. We have to find ways to raise the salaries and help attract and retain more of them to go out on the street.

I am going to stop with this, for the moment. I first went into law enforcement in 1990 as a prosecutor, and I took it seriously then.

The gentleman on the other side is accusing Democrats of not being serious about police. We have former police officers here on this side of the aisle who are Democrats, and I know them across the country. Not only that but every time I have run for office, I have been endorsed by the FOP in my jurisdiction. It is a little unfortunate to sort of use those sorts of attacks to justify the resolution that is proposed here.

Let's get serious. Let's get back to doing things that actually will address the problems and retain more police officers, recruit more police officers, and address the concerns that we have with respect to keeping safe on the street.

Yes, gun violence is a big factor in the dangers that they face on the streets. I think it is kind of hard to be serious about protecting them if we are not even going to discuss that.

My colleague from Virginia mentioned that he thinks we want to make sure that they are 21 because if you wait until they are 21, it undermines their Second Amendment rights. I appreciate that, but I don't agree with that take.

Let me say this: Ghost guns, I haven't come across anybody who thinks those make sense. They are intentionally designed to avoid prosecution. They don't have any numbers on them in order to avoid being tracked in the event of use for a criminal enterprise. The use of ghost guns in crimes on the street is exploding.

We need to get our Republican colleagues to help us support legislation like that. We are having trouble finding it, but today would be the day.

By the way, talking about killings on the street, it is handguns primarily, as I just mentioned a few minutes ago, that are leading to officers' deaths on the streets. If we are really serious about protecting police officers, can't we do something to try to address that? Can't we do something to try to limit the number of guns on the street?

Also, I know that the argument is going to be Democrats are soft on crime and all of that, but remember, a lot of the people who commit these crimes don't have prior offenses. The guy who killed the two deputies in my jurisdiction, Arnaud and Magruder, didn't have any prior record. He had mental health issues.

We can't just assume that all of these issues revolve around people who have long criminal records because they don't, and many times police officers are killed on the street by people with no prior records.

Let's try to address all of these issues in a serious way, in a bipartisan way, because that is the way to actually help keep our police officers safe on the street.

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

Mr. Speaker, no Member of Congress questions the difficulty, danger, or stress associated with serving in law enforcement. We are grateful for each and every Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement officer, agent, or employee working daily, putting their lives on the line to keep us safe in every corner and territory of this Nation.

This week we should come together to honor their dedication to their jobs and communities, lift up the names of those officers and agents who gave their lives in service, and wrap our arms around their loved ones left behind.

Sadly, Republicans have chosen partisanship over bipartisanship at this time. I, therefore, must oppose H. Res. 1213, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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 1227 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 1227 provides for consideration of eight measures: H.R. 8369, H.R. 7530, H.R. 7343, H.R. 8146, H.R. 7581, H.R. 354, H. Res. 1213, and H. Res. 1210. The rule provides for H.R. 7343 and H.R. 8146 to be considered under structured rules with 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of two measures, H.R. 354 and H.R. 7581, under closed rules with 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H. Res. 1210 and H. Res. 1213 under closed rules, with 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the Chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 7530 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8369 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their designee and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

The rule before us provides for consideration of three measures to support our Nation's law enforcement in the face of the Biden administration's disastrous immigration policies.

H.R. 7343, the Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Cops Act, would bring real consequences on the heads of those in our country illegally. This legislation would require the immediate detention and deportation of any illegal alien who chooses to assault the men and women who keep our communities safe.

Additionally, H.R. 8146 would require that the Attorney General provide a full accounting of how this historic and dangerous border crisis has truly impacted the health and the safety of our Nation's law enforcement.

Finally, H. Res. 1210 condemns the Biden administration's failed border policies that have resulted in 9.3 million illegal alien encounters along our borders in less than 4 years--and that doesn't include those that have evaded Border Patrol.

America's law enforcement officers are on the front lines of the Biden border crisis, bearing the brunt of this President's open-borders policies that are threatening the security of our Nation and laying waste to our communities.

We have yet to fully know the true damage done to our national security by 4 years of flinging the doors open for those breaking our laws. One thing is certain, it is falling on our Nation's law enforcement officers--our police officers in big cities and small towns across America--to contend with the consequences of this administration's open-borders policies.

The Biden border crisis is only one challenge facing our Nation's law enforcement officers. As we witness an alarming surge in criminal activity thanks to the left's antipolice, soft-on-crime policies, it is imperative that we confront a harsh reality. Our law enforcement officers are under attack both physically and politically. They are being targeted by the radical left simply for doing their jobs, for upholding the rule of law, and for protecting our communities.

To that end, the rule today before us provides for consideration of several measures that stand with our law enforcement officers in the face of these asinine policies that seek to vilify them and prevent them from doing their jobs, including H.R. 7581, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act; H.R. 354, the LEOSA Reform Act; and H. Res. 1213, a resolution condemning violence against our law enforcement officers.

H.R. 7581 would require the Department of Justice to report to Congress about violent attacks on law enforcement officers and the response of Federal, State, and local governments to these attacks.

Additionally, H.R. 354 would fix a discrepancy under current law to ensure that qualified active or retired law enforcement officers are not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in public settings. There is no good reason why the men and women who put their lives on the line for us every day should have their Second Amendment rights curtailed as they are under the current law.

Finally, H. Res. 1213 expresses a sentiment that I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can fully embrace and get behind: full, unequivocal support for our law enforcement officers and strong opposition to any movement that seeks to defund the police.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of statistics or headlines. The soft-on-crime policies that the radical left have championed have only left American families in more danger. Years of Democrat-elected officials, including some right here in Congress, calling to defund the police have vilified our law enforcement officers, preventing them from doing their jobs, leaving the people that they serve less safe.

Nowhere is this displayed more vividly than right here in our Nation's Capital, and the rule before us today also provides for consideration of a bill to combat the District of Columbia's anti-law enforcement, pro-criminal policies: H.R. 7530, the D.C. Criminal Reforms to Immediately Make Everyone Safe Act.

D.C. law enforcement remains understaffed and overwhelmed by soaring rates of violent crime. In 2023 alone, homicides increased 29 percent from 2022, violent crime increased 37 percent, and robberies increased 65 percent.

What has the D.C. Council done?

Well, in 2022, it passed the Revised Criminal Code Act, which reduced penalties for violent offenders, and in that same year the Council passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act, which targeted D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officers and their ability to combat rising crime.

If the D.C. Council will not heed the concerns of the District's residents, police officers, and visitors from this country and around the world, then it is Congress' job to step in. This mess only encourages lawlessness and puts lives at risk. We have had one of our own colleagues, a Member of Congress, carjacked and a staffer stabbed, among many other horrifying and violent crimes. If we can't get a handle on crime in our Nation's beautiful Capital, how does that fare for the rest of the country?

H.R. 7530 changes the maximum age limit for youth offender status from 24 years old to 18 years old. It requires the District's attorney general to establish and update a public website containing juvenile crime statistics in the District and prohibits the D.C. Council from enacting any changes to criminal sentences.

Youth criminal activity has skyrocketed along with every other manner of violent crime in our Nation's Capital. A soft-on-crime approach is simply just not working, putting the lives of innocent residents and visitors in danger, and hamstringing the ability of our cops to do their jobs.

Residents of D.C. have the same rights as other Americans to be secure in their homes and to be protected against crimes committed against their lives and their property. It is heartbreaking to see the crimes committed by children and young people in D.C., and we need real solutions to address them. Children in our Nation's Capital deserve better than antipolice policies that lead them to a life of crime.

It is our duty as Members of Congress, as laid out in the D.C. Home Rule Act, to step in when the District's own policies so clearly threaten the safety of the residents of our Nation's Capital as they do today.

Finally, the rule before us provides for consideration of H.R. 8369, the Israel Security Assistance Support Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is frankly shocking and disgusting to hear that President Biden is purposely withholding our Nation's arms shipments to Israel as they are fighting to defend their right to exist.

At a time when Israel is under assault, facing attacks from Hamas and Iran, the decision to withhold these critical munitions is not just a failure; it is a betrayal of our greatest ally in the Middle East, and it goes directly against the will of this Congress and the will of the people.

We cannot let political games endanger lives. H.R. 8369 would ensure that America stands with Israel in its darkest hour, despite this administration's disgraceful actions to block such vital support. The legislation will ensure that any defense articles and defense services for Israel are delivered expeditiously, without obstruction from an administration that is willing to play games, unfortunately, with such necessary shipments, and we will prevent them subverting the will of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, America must stand with Israel and send a message to the world that we will not falter. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle likes to talk about the fact that these bills today that we are going to consider this week, these pro-police measures, don't have a future in the Senate or getting to the desk of the President. Yes, that is because his party controls those two branches. The Senate leadership will do nothing with this because they don't support the underlying legislation. They don't support law enforcement.

I would like to point out that it was Democrats who have for years pushed the defund the police rhetoric in cities, States, and right here in Washington, not House Republicans. In fact, it was Democrats who took the defund the police rhetoric and made it viral. They turned it into concrete policy that demonizes our men and women in blue while letting violent criminals back out on the street.

Madam Speaker, do you think the American people are really going to buy that Democrats weren't the ones who wanted to defund the police?

Madam Speaker, we could rewind the tape back to 2020 if you want to. We can show you the footage of our cities burning while they were chanting to defund the police and watching weak mayors of cities down on one knee begging for forgiveness for standing for law and order. We could go back and rewind the tape and get a little instant replay if you like. The footage is there. It is in black and white. It is a matter of historical fact that my friend's party supported the defund the police movement.

What I just heard from the other side of the aisle couldn't be any more laughable. Democrats in New York City, certainly not Republicans, cut the NYPD's budget by $1 billion with more cuts to come. We have some of those brave NYPD officers here with us this week for Police Week.

Democrats in Los Angeles, not Republicans, cut the LAPD's budget by hundreds of millions of dollars with more cuts to come.

Democrats in Chicago, not Republicans, cut the Chicago PD's budget by $1 billion only to embarrassingly and quietly reverse further plans for cuts in recent years after crime spiraled out of control.

Right here in our Nation's Capital it was Democrats, not Republicans, who passed legislation to make it more difficult than ever for cops to do their jobs and keep D.C.'s communities and residents safe. Let's not forget that at the height of the defund the police movement, it was House Democrats, not House Republicans, who attempted to completely defund the Department of Justice's Project Safe Neighborhoods program, a nationwide initiative that empowers law enforcement to work with community leaders and stakeholders to directly identify the most pressing violent crime problems in a community. I am talking rapes, armed robberies, gang violence, and much, much more.

Nonetheless, that didn't stop House Democrats from defunding this program to appease a radical base. The radical left has bought hook, line, and sinker into the defund the police movement, and Americans in New York, in Washington, in Chicago, in L.A., and everywhere else where Democrat leaders hold sway are reaping the consequences of these dangerous policies.

Madam Speaker, the family of slain NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller told New York Governor Kathy Hochul that she had blood on her hands. They see, as Americans across the country see, that it is the Democrats and not the Republicans who have abandoned law enforcement. They have vilified them, and they have made it harder than ever for them to do their job and keep their people safe.

The legislation under this rule today is a step in the direction of supporting our law enforcement officers and empowering them with the tools to keep our communities safe in spite of the defund the police movement and in spite of the Biden border crisis.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is the chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, it is great to see that my colleague, the ranking member, has looked into Jamestown, New York, and read some of our headlines. Yes, we have Republican leadership right now, a brand-new elected Republican mayor. There was a Democratic mayor up until this last election, but I don't blame the outgoing Democratic mayor.

I do blame the State of New York's leadership for destroying the criminal justice system in the State of New York, eliminating cash bail, and creating discovery reform. Creating a revolving-door criminal justice system in the State of New York is the reason that the police officers, many of which are at our Capitol this very week to celebrate Police Week, can't do their jobs.

They have been put in handcuffs while the criminals walk free with an appearance ticket for many of the same crimes that the gentleman just rattled off from the Jamestown Post-Journal. That is fact. That is fact in the State of New York because Democrat-run policies, a Democratic Governor, a supermajority in the State senate, and a supermajority in the State assembly have destroyed my State's criminal justice system. They have blood on their hands and have destroyed towns, villages, and cities across the once-great Empire State.

The gentleman has found a few headlines, and we hope to get some restoration of common sense back to the Empire State once again, but it has to start right here in our Nation's Capital. It starts with the legislation under this rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), my friend.

Madam Speaker, my friends across the aisle are making some wild claims that somehow crime has gone down. It is like President Biden taking a bow for gas prices going from five bucks a gallon to four bucks a gallon when they were far less than that just before he was sworn in.

My colleague's claims rest on cherry-picked data that does not present a full picture of the crime problem in our major cities, so let's revisit some of the facts.

Violent crime has skyrocketed with year over year increases in violent crime in the millions. Carjackings have spiked by as much as 93 percent in many major cities and 18 percent more homicides were committed in 2023 than in 2019.

It is no coincidence that many of these major cities that have been the epicenter of the wave in violent crime also happen to be run by Democratic politicians with leftwing DAs that have made it their mission not to prosecute perpetrators but to put dangerous criminals back on the streets and to facilitate a revolving door criminal justice system.

My colleagues need only to venture beyond Capitol Hill to see what these policies have done to our Nation's Capital. To recap here, according to the Metro Police Department's own data, crime in D.C. increased 30 percent in 2023 compared to the previous year.

In 2023 alone, homicides increased 29 percent compared to 2022. In fact, since 2012, the rate of homicides in D.C. has doubled. Violent crime has increased 37 percent and robberies increased 65 percent from 2022 to 2023. Motor vehicle thefts increased 107 percent between 2022 and 2023.

This surge of criminal activity is a direct result of the D.C. Council's soft-on-crime sentencing policy and refusal to back up its law enforcement officers with real support, resulting in resignations of police officers. We have heard it directly in the Oversight Committee from the union officials.

Madam Speaker, despite my colleague's refusal to wake up to the reality, the fact remains that we are at this point today with crime soaring in many of our major cities and Americans are feeling less safe because of the disastrous policies the Democratic leaders, at the behest of the radical left that governs their party have imposed on residents of our communities.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I think it is important that we don't forget all the other legislation in this bill, as we have had a spirited debate today about law enforcement.

It is really important to remind my colleagues today about the situation in Israel and the Israel legislation that is being considered this week. We need to talk about how this conflict began. On October 7, it was Hamas and not Israel that launched a horrifying terror attack that took thousands of lives and innocent people hostage.

It was Hamas terrorists who murdered approximately 1,200 people, including Holocaust survivors, the elderly, babies, and beautiful young people attending a music festival. It is Hamas who, to this day, has over 100 innocent people held hostage, including American citizens who we cannot forget are being held hostage. Americans are currently being held hostage in Gaza.

Hamas is responsible for this war. Hamas, a terrorist organization, has for decades now used civilian structures and innocent people to shield their terrorist operations. However, Madam Speaker, none of that stopped anti-Israel protesters from taking to the streets just a day after the horrific attacks and the butchery of Israeli civilians to chant ``from the river to the sea.''

There are some people that serve in this building that take their time and like to chant ``from the river to the sea,'' and they need to be held accountable for that, which we know is synonymous language for the extermination of the Jewish people in Israel.

Madam Speaker, by holding these arms shipments, President Biden is just not flouting the will of Congress and the American people, but he is also kowtowing to the radical left that, frankly, has embraced the anti-Israel movement wholeheartedly. It has become practically a platform plank over there.

We are learning more and more about the leftwing groups and donors that are bankrolling the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic protests that have erupted across the country. We noted that it is the far left, including Members of the House, that have fully endorsed this message to turn against our ally Israel in their hour of need and to isolate them and to ultimately support their destruction.

Madam Speaker, I am done hearing the false equivalencies of a morally bankrupt movement. Anyone who remembers the true reason why Israel is defending itself today should support the legislation under this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I wish my colleague from Massachusetts well with his Trump derangement syndrome.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today is about standing up for the safety and well-being of our neighborhoods, our families, and our way of life. It is about standing up for what is right and defending those who risk their lives every single day to keep our communities safe.

In my own district in the southern tier of New York, a Chemung County Sheriff's investigator, Michael Theetge, was critically injured when he was hit by a shoplifter's getaway car and has since been fighting to recover. Our prayers and wishes for a speedy recovery are with him and our whole community.

Sadly, Investigator Theetge's case is not an isolated incident. It is emblematic of the dangers to law enforcement officers and what they face every time they put on their uniforms.

In my own State of New York, we have lost some of our very finest recently. We have recently laid to rest Lieutenant Michael Hoosock of the Onondaga County Sheriff's Department, Syracuse Police Officer Michael Jensen, and NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller.

We don't want other families to have to go through what their families are facing right now and to be able to expect that their loved ones will come home at the end of their shifts safe and sound.

What is happening in America's major cities in too many States and right here in our Nation's Capital is simply unacceptable, and it needs to be addressed now and is with this legislation before us.

This rule, Madam Speaker, is also about standing up for our closest friends and allies. Since October 7, Israel has been in a struggle for self-defense against a terrorist organization that seeks nothing but violence, destruction, and extermination of the Jewish people.

Israel needs the tools to defend itself and defeat Hamas. We need to send a message to the world that America will not falter in our commitment to our allies. We need to send these munitions to Israel now. Our future and their future depend on it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

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

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

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

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have us here today considering eight measures that aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Six of the eight measures that are being brought before this House are being brought forth under completely closed rules, which means nobody, not Democrats and not Republicans, can offer any amendments to change or improve those bills.

So much for Republican promises of a more deliberative process or more openness or more fairness. That just went out the window.

I don't think I have ever seen a group of people do so much and yet accomplish so little.

Seven of these measures are supposedly about law enforcement.

Madam Speaker, do you know how many of them will actually do something to help keep people safe?

Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Just a piece of free advice to my Republican friends: It is probably not the best idea to take direction on law and order from a guy who, as we speak, is a defendant for covering up hush money payments to a porn star for political gain. That is not even to mention the other three criminal felony prosecutions that he faces.

Look at the cover of today's New York Times, Madam Speaker. This is unbelievable. Here is a picture of the Speaker of this House of Representatives, second in line to the Presidency, standing in front of a courthouse acting as a prop for Donald Trump trying to interfere with a criminal trial because, apparently, Republicans like law and order unless it applies to them.

It is unbelievable. Madam Speaker, you can't make this stuff up.

I will say to my colleagues that this stunt of the Speaker and Republican Members of Congress going to this courthouse diminishes this House of Representatives. Their candidate for President has been indicted more times than he has been elected.

I didn't think I was.

Somehow, Madam Speaker, they have the nerve to tell us about the criminal justice system?

Give me a break.

Their credibility on this issue has evaporated. It is pathetic. I could go through these bills one by one, but I think the American people would rather watch paint dry because none of these bills do anything. None of these bills will be passed by the Senate. None of them will do a damn thing to help the police. None of them will keep our communities safe. We have a ton of BS bills going out to immigrants. Let me just remind everyone: It was Republicans who killed their own bipartisan border security bill in the Senate, and it is Republicans in the House who refused to even bring it up for a vote.

Why?

It is because they are afraid it might pass. They are afraid they might lose a talking point.

We have a nonbinding resolution about defund the police.

Isn't it ironic that they all talk so much about defunding the police, but despite their rhetoric, Republicans are the ones who want to defund the police.

Republicans support cutting the COPS program, which hires police officers in every State in America.

Get this, Madam Speaker: Republicans voted against awarding police officers who protected all of us on January 6 the Congressional Gold Medal. Let that sink in.

Republicans voted to fire 2,000 Customs and Border Protection police officers. Republicans voted to cut Federal support for local law enforcement agencies in September of 2022.

Republicans have called to abolish the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the ATF.

At every single juncture, when Republicans have had a chance to put their money where their mouth is, they have shown that all their pro- police rhetoric is just that: rhetoric.

They will say whatever they need to win political support from police and then hope the cops don't notice when they vote to cut their budgets.

The eighth bill this rule would bring to the floor is the so-called Israel Security Assistance Support Act. This bill is a disaster. It basically gets rid of human rights checks and balances already in place on arms transfers, and it would interfere with any administration's ability to comply with U.S. obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law.

I think it is absurd that my Republican friends don't understand the difference between supporting Israel and writing Prime Minister Netanyahu a blank check to do whatever the hell he wants with U.S. weapons with no regard for civilian lives or for human rights.

That is not even just the Democratic position, by the way. Three U.S. Presidents have threatened to pause military aid to Israel under similar circumstances.

Who were they?

They were Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. They were all Republicans, Madam Speaker. They were all Republicans.

Please don't give me this partisan BS. Please. Please, spare us that.

U.S. military assistance doesn't come with no conditions. If our taxpayers are paying for it, then they ought to have some level of assurance that it is not being used to indiscriminately bomb civilians or block the delivery of humanitarian aid to starving people.

The bombs that the President is withholding, these 2-ton bombs, have a blast radius of one-quarter of a mile. That means, I would say to my friends, if you were standing in front of this Capitol and the bomb were dropped on the Republican congressional campaign headquarters or the Democratic congressional campaign headquarters, then we all would be dead if we were standing in front of the U.S. Capitol.

The President is concerned that 2-ton bombs are being dropped on Rafah, a heavily populated area with over 1 million people. He believes that the civilian casualties are unacceptable. We all should care about the civilian casualties, especially if we claim to be a friend of Israel, because the more civilian casualties that are incurred, then the more difficulty Israel has in getting to a lasting peace.

It is a real shame that this is what Republicans have decided we should spend our week doing, Madam Speaker. I had hoped, Madam Speaker, that after the Democrats bailed out Speaker Mike Johnson last week that maybe, just maybe, we would see a change in the tone of this place. Maybe there would be more of an acknowledgment that we need to put people over politics and that we need to get stuff done, because that is what the American people want.

I am disappointed to see that this week it is just more of the same old same old from this incompetent Republican leadership that has wasted away their time and power and accomplished nothing, not a single damn thing, during their time in their slim majority. The American people deserve a hell of a lot better than they are getting from my friends on the Republican side.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, it is rich to be lectured by the chairman of the Rules Committee about the need to support our police officers and to help do more to recruit and train them.

I will say to my friend, the distinguished Member from Texas (Mr. Burgess), and to all of my Republican friends: Stop cutting COPS grants. Continue to adequately fund the COPS program so that we can actually have our local law enforcement recruit and hire more police officers.

My Republican friends don't like to admit a desire to cut the COPS grants. I would say to everybody who is watching to look it up for themselves.

The Republican Study Committee, which is the largest caucus in the Republican Conference, actually put out a report titled: ``Fiscal Sanity to Save America.'' If my colleagues go to page 148, and I urge people to look it up for themselves, it says: ``Reduce funding for Community Oriented Policing Services,'' or basically what we call the COPS grants.

Republicans want to cut money for our local police. It is in their budget document. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to cut the money and then come here and make believe somehow that Republicans support our local police officers. Come on. Enough.

Additionally, sometimes I wonder whether the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) really believes the stuff that he says. The gentleman keeps talking about crime in Democrat-run cities. By the way, it is Democratic-run cities. The last time I checked, we don't have Democratic cities or Republican cities in this country. We have American cities.

I took the liberty of looking up some of the headlines from New York's 23rd Congressional District, which Mr. Langworthy represents, and, in particular, Jamestown, New York, the largest city in the area and the location of his district office. Jamestown has a Republican mayor, a Republican city council, a Republican supermajority on the county legislature, a Republican State representative, a Republican State senator, and a Republican Congressman.

Let's look at some of the recent headlines from the Republican stronghold of Jamestown, New York: April 22, 2024, ``Jamestown man accused of killing 16-month-old child charged with manslaughter''; March 2024, ``1 dead, 2 injured in Jamestown homicide''; January 2024, ``Investigation Underway in Jamestown Homicide Case''; May 2023, ``Three Accused Of Stealing A Vehicle In Jamestown''; June 2021, ``Two teenage girls charged with arson in connection with Jamestown furniture manufacturer fire''; and February 2024, ``Six arrested after robbery, assault leads to standoff in Jamestown NY.''

I could go on and on. Madam Speaker, none of this is to disparage the wonderful people who Mr. Langworthy represents, but if the gentleman wants to come down here and read off RNC talking points about crime, I think the gentleman should at least try to be intellectually honest.

I know the other side wants to play the blame game. I know Republicans are all about stunts and not solutions, but maybe, just maybe, the majority ought to look in the mirror first instead of playing to the cheap seats.

Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to include in the Record a Salon article titled: ``Republicans like to talk tough on crime--but they're the ones with a real crime problem.''

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

Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), but let me say to the gentleman that, rather than just denounce the slogan of defunding the police, maybe the gentleman should go to the Republican Study Committee and tell them to not defund the police because, again, if one goes to the Republican Study Group document, page 148, it is clear that the Republicans want to defund the COPS program.

Please, enough with the rhetoric. If my colleagues are serious about supporting the police, then don't cut the COPS program, period. How hard is this?

I remind the gentleman that the hometown of the former Republican Speaker of this House, before the Republicans threw him out, Kevin McCarthy, which is Bakersfield, California, has a higher crime rate than San Francisco. I don't even know where my friends are coming from.

I have to say that I have never heard anybody denounce their home State as much as I have heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) denounce New York. I think New York is a great State. It is not as good as Massachusetts, but I think it is a great State.

I get it. The gentleman just explained it all to me. If it is a Democratic-controlled area, all the crime is blamed on the Democrat. If it is a Republican-controlled area, then the majority finds the nearest Democrat, and Republicans blame it on the Democrat. That is their rationale.

I mean, come on. This place has to get more serious in terms of supporting initiatives to actually not only support law enforcement but protect our communities instead of one sound bite after another that does absolutely nothing and the blame game that we hear constantly.

Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues this week claim to want to focus on public safety but have chosen to put misguided measures and messaging bills on the floor. Here is their chance to actually do something of substance that will make police officers safer, make our streets safer, and make our children safer.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 715, a bipartisan bill to require a background check for every firearm sale.

There were over 42,000 firearm deaths last year, with the annual total of mass shootings increasing from 414 in 2019 to over 650 in 2023. Eighty-six percent of homicides in this country involve a firearm, and of the States that saw their gun homicide rate decrease between 2022 and 2023, States with the strongest gun laws decreased their homicides by a rate nearly triple their lax gun law counterparts.

This is common sense. It is not a partisan issue. In fact, H.R. 715, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, was introduced--hold on to your seats here--by a Republican.

I know that, like me, many of my colleagues have children and all of them have elementary schools and middle schools in their districts. I know Members see the toll this is taking on our Nation's children, our most vulnerable. Nearly 60 percent of teachers are worried about a shooting happening in their school, and one in four had a gun-related lockdown during the last school year. According to the Pew Research Center, one in five parents was extremely concerned about their child getting shot, and Republican leadership wants to do nothing.

This is barbaric. It is past time, Madam Speaker, and we are ready to work in a bipartisan way to end the epidemic of gun violence in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey) to discuss our proposal.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman keeps on talking about crime in D.C., crime in D.C., crime on the rise. I can tell you one thing; the crime is definitely down in the White House right now and I can understand why the gentleman is confused.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Washington Post, entitled: ``Crime is down, though FOX News viewers might not be aware.''

The article notes: ``The reality is that crime surged in 2020--when Trump was President. That surge continued into the Biden administration but has since waned.''

Madam Speaker, in the lead up to the 2022 midterms, FOX News invested immense resources in promoting stories about surging crime, despite lacking evidence. While crime is down, it appears the conservative ecosystem is trying to fearmonger the issue of crime, once again, because, you know, that is all they have.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from The Guardian, entitled: ``Crime coverage on FOX News halved once U.S. midterms were over.''

Madam Speaker, so after a frenzy of coverage about violent crime in September and October 2022, the conservative media giant FOX News actually decreased coverage of violent crime stories by 50 percent in the weeks following the 2022 elections.

Crime stories have long been used by Republicans to fearmonger for cheap, electoral victories, and it seems like this old tactic is being utilized, once again, in 2024, all while 80 percent of Republicans support cutting the COPS grant program.

Madam Speaker, I urge my friends who don't believe me to go to the Republican Study Committee FY 2025 Budget proposal--this is the most recent one--and go to page 148. You will see under the heading, Reduce Funding for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), it is my Republican friends--for all the talk about defunding the police--that are leading the way because there in their Republican Study Committee, which is the largest caucus in the Republican Conference, they have put out a report highlighting their budget priorities, which talks about eliminating the COPS program. You can't make this stuff up.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I am unable to rebut all the nonsense I just heard, and I am exhausted by this debate. Let me touch on two things. First, we haven't heard a single word from our colleagues across the aisle acknowledging the very real challenges civilians in Gaza are experiencing every day under this war. We have not heard a single word.

If we send massive 2,000-pound bombs to Netanyahu without any assurances on how they will be used, it could mean unprecedented, catastrophic civilian casualties. I mean, these are people that we are talking about, innocent people--boys and girls, brothers and sisters, moms and dads, grandparents, babies.

Where is our humanity? Where is our humanity? These are people who are already struggling with shortages of food, water, shelter, medical supplies, the basic things that humans need to survive. They fled to Rafah because that is where Netanyahu told them to go to escape the bombing of Hamas. Now, Netanyahu is saying he is going to bomb them anyway, and there is no plan to safely evacuate them to any other place.

I don't care whether there is another country that does it. Killing civilians is wrong. It is always wrong. You can be a friend of Israel, a strong ally of Israel, and also be a critic when it comes to the Netanyahu government.

You can be a strong friend of Israel and say that more massive civilian casualties will undercut Israel's security. This is not the way to go.

You can feel as I do that what happened on October 7, the horrific attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians. It was unconscionable. There aren't enough adjectives to describe how horrific that was.

The taking of hostages is a war crime. We want them released. You can feel that way, but also understand that we have an obligation to protect civilian lives in Gaza.

I am grateful to President Biden for taking the step that he did, and I wish he would do more, quite frankly. It is disappointing for me to see that so many of my friends across the aisle seem indifferent to it.

Madam Speaker, coming down here to get lectured about crime from the party whose leader is a criminal is really something else.

My friend from New York not once rebutted our contention that Republicans have advocated cutting the COPS grant because it is here in print. Anybody can see it.

For those who want to know why this program is good, it is because it provides money to help local law enforcement be able to hire and recruit police officers, especially in areas where budgets are tight.

It is a lifeline for so many communities, rural and urban, all throughout this country, and they are advocating eliminating it. Give me a break.

None of the measures the House of Representatives are putting forth this week do a single thing to protect Americans, secure our communities, or improve law enforcement.

Madam Speaker, the real shame here is that if Republicans were willing to set their partisanship aside and work across the aisle, maybe we could get something substantive done because the reality is that Democrats want to keep people safe, and we know how to do it.

We need to invest in programs that get at the root causes of crime, and we need to address gun violence in our schools and make sure police aren't put in situations that they aren't trained to handle. We know the key to improving safety in our neighborhoods is not to use our law enforcement officers like political pawns.

At the end of the day, the Republican commitment to chaos, extremism, and politicking over legislating is hurting our ability to improve people's lives. I have to be honest: I think it is going to backfire on them.

Even one of our Republican colleagues took to the floor and said as much last year: ``Nothing but empty promises.'' He went to say: ``We haven't done anything,'' meaning Republicans. ``One thing. I want my Republican colleagues to give me one thing--one--that I can go campaign on and say we did--one--anybody sitting in the complex, if you want to come down to the floor and come explain to me one material, meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has done.''

That is a Republican saying that. They know they are getting nowhere in this Congress.

All I can say, Madam Speaker, is the American people deserve better, and they certainly deserve better than the Speaker of the House spending his time trying to influence our justice system at a courthouse in New York City. How pathetic. When we have real problems that we need to deal with here in this country, he is in New York trying to explain away, like a staffer, all of Donald Trump's problems, quite frankly.

I am trying to think of a way to stay within order here with the new rules. It is pathetic. It is pathetic. That is where the Speaker of the House is spending his time, trying to rationalize all of the former President's crimes. Give me a break.

Madam Speaker, the American people, as I said, deserve better. I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this rule. This is just a waste of time. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am frustrated and angry but also deeply saddened. The law enforcement profession is an honorable one. To have so much compassion for others that you are willing to put your life on the line, it is, as we say, a call to service, and not many hear that call today.

If you had asked me a few years ago if my children should become law enforcement officers, I would have undoubtedly said yes. However, after these last few years of observing the treatment of our law enforcement officers, I would have to think twice about my answer.

Since 2020, I have watched the law enforcement profession become a punching bag, scapegoated by rabid media pundits more interested in clickbait than the facts, villainized by Hollywood, and disparaged by city councils, Members of this Congress, both men and women, and even our President.

Yet, all these people expect law enforcement to respond to their calls for service. They expect them to take the verbal assault and show up with a smile on their face ready to serve.

The wonderful thing about my brothers and sisters in uniform is that despite this treatment and abuse, they will show up. They will answer every call. They will sacrifice their safety for others. They will help protect their community no matter how much ridicule or resentment they face.

I am here to say the things that they can't. I am here to protect my brothers and sisters in the blue and brown because others won't.

Enough is enough.

Law enforcement officers deserve our respect, our admiration, and our support. To provide anything else is unacceptable.

The resolution before us acknowledges the change in attitude toward law enforcement over the last few years and the subsequent violence directed toward them. It acknowledges that they respond to calls for service no matter who is on the other line.

It acknowledges that the job has only become more dangerous and more mentally and physically exhausting, yet they still show up for work, not knowing if they have kissed their families good-bye for the last time.

Importantly, this resolution also acknowledges that we in this Chamber set the standard. We are the ones who must demonstrate a respect for the rule of law and a respect for our law enforcement officers if we are to expect the public to do the same. We must do so in our actions, in our conversations, and even the policies we consider.

Bills that never become law can have the most staggering ripple effect. They can persuade local municipalities to implement soft-on- crime policies and strip law enforcement of resources. They can encourage the public to cheat, steal, and disrespect fellow community members. They can cause good, noble people to change their minds about entering the profession that I love so much, which is law enforcement.

Actions have consequences, and our communities are suffering as a result.

Let's take this moment to learn, to change for the better. We can rise to the moment, stand with our law enforcement officers, reestablish law and order, and bring safety back to our communities.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to respond to my good friend and colleague who is managing the time on the other side of the aisle. He talked about his support for law enforcement and what he did.

I want to read something to you: ``It is not enough to hold the officers involved accountable. In the past year, police killings have reached a record high. Rogue, militant policing continues to run rampant across our country, threatening public safety and the lives of millions of Americans.

``Our antiquated criminal justice system has long allowed law enforcement to utilize excessive force and prejudicial policing practices while avoiding accountability. We need extensive reform now with de-escalation training, selective bias training, and better policing. I am urging my colleagues in Congress to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

``Additionally, we must invest in our communities through unarmed first responder agencies, mental health and crisis support treatment options, diversion programs, community intervention groups, and re- entry programs. We can and must do better to avoid tragedies and improve public safety. I will never stop working to support and enact changes that will make our country safer for all Americans.''

The first part, this whole quote that I read was from my colleague who is managing the time on the other side of the aisle. That is horrendous because the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act takes away qualified immunity. If you take away qualified immunity

from the American law enforcement officer, it will devastate our communities. It will devastate recruitment, retention, and morale.

You have to be kidding me.

Mr. Speaker, this is what we are dealing with.

I became a law enforcement officer in late 1994 when Ron Ryan and Tim Jones from the St. Paul Police Department were ambushed and killed. I was a young officer. I didn't even have my funeral uniform yet, but I went to those funerals wondering what profession I was getting in, even taking a second thought whether I should stay in the profession. I was 1 week on the job.

In Cottage Grove, Minnesota, I was working the night shift. My partner and I that night, Tom Uland, stopped at a gas station to have a cup of coffee on the midnight shift. We talked about our families. We split up. He went one way, and I went the other. Within 3 minutes he is screaming for help. He needed help on a traffic stop. I couldn't get there fast enough. When my squad car got on that scene, the whole engine was shaking. I couldn't get to him fast enough.

He was being attacked by the driver and a dog, and the female passenger was crying. We found out when Officer Uland went to make that traffic stop the driver said to the female passenger: I am going to kill him.

When Officer Uland went up to the window, the suspect was digging into his armrest trying to get a handgun, and the female passenger was trying to move it away from him to save the officer's life. I got there during the struggle. Five minutes before that, he and I were having a cup of coffee and talking about our families and our futures. That is how quickly it can change.

The cavalier attitude of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is unconscionable. Where were they during the summer of love, 2020, when officers were getting ambushed? Where were they, Mr. Speaker?

On December 15, 1995, at 10:32 p.m., at the intersection of Sixth Avenue East and Fourth Street, Duluth, Minnesota, a career criminal tried to shoot me in the head and kill me, and I survived by the grace of God. He was a career criminal who should have been put away years ago.

Don't tell me we don't have issues.

We have issues with prosecution, too. The Federal prosecutor in Minneapolis would not charge him with felon in possession of a handgun. We couldn't figure out why. An off-duty police officer was shot in the head by a career criminal who should never have had the gun, and he wouldn't prosecute.

It was about 8 years later when the drug task force supervisor woke me up in the middle of the night and called me.

He said: Pete, we got him. He is going to prison for a long time. We have got the stolen guns on him. He is not getting away with this one.

It took him years after to put this guy away.

Then on London Road in Duluth, Minnesota, suspects tried to kidnap some folks. I get the call with my supervisor. I don't get to choose what call I go on. I don't get to say: I don't want to go on this gun call. I don't want to go on that.

I get the call, and I go, and every single police officer in this Nation does the same thing.

It is a kidnapping, suspect with a gun. I go, I clear the room, Mr. Speaker, and the suspect comes flying in the room, points a handgun right at me, and pulls the trigger. By the grace of God, it didn't go off.

Do you know why I knew it didn't go off?

It happened so fast; I saw it in his eyes. I was in a street fight for my life; and, yes, I needed some help after that call. That is why I am adamant that the professionals who serve our communities get the mental health they need, and they need it now sometimes.

To listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pretend they support law enforcement, they have never worn the boots, or many of them have never worn the boots. They have never answered a call: Two shot, officer needs help. Most of them have never had a suspect with a rifle in his hand ready to kill you.

I have to make a decision, Mr. Speaker. If that rifle comes up, then I have to save my life. I have to do that. I don't want to, but his actions are causing me to save my own life and the lives of others.

Mr. Speaker, the honorable men and women in law enforcement in America deserve better treatment. This week we celebrated Law Enforcement Week, Police Week. We saw the men and women in uniform, the proud men and women in uniform, come to our Nation's Capital and be proud of their profession.

This week, Law Enforcement Week, should be 52 weeks a year. Every week we should support law enforcement and protect law enforcement. I am sick and tired of seeing this happen to law enforcement men and women, Mr. Speaker, throughout this Nation. There are Members in this body who stand at a microphone and vilify law enforcement. They will go to their funerals though. They will go to their funerals.

When it comes to supporting the legislation that I have here, a resolution regarding violence against law enforcement, my colleague says that it is partisan.

You have to be kidding me.

This is a resolution regarding violence against law enforcement officers, and my good friend calls it partisan.

Yes, defund the police was real. We are seeing the effects of it today. The recruitment and retention morale are at the lowest ever. There are shortages, Mr. Speaker, in police departments across this Nation, including my hometown.

Do they want to sit up here during National Police Week and pretend?

No. We are not going to have it. You are either going to support law enforcement or you don't.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

Most departments today wear body cameras or have squad car cameras, in-squad cameras. In this Nation, cooler heads must prevail on the support for law enforcement. We have to understand what they go through. We must push: comply now, challenge later. Comply now, challenge later.

Mr. Speaker, in 23 years of law enforcement, when I placed somebody under arrest: Please put your hands behind your back. You are under arrest. Palms out. Don't resist. Do you understand?

I placed my handcuffs on them, gapped them, and double-locked them, escorted them to the right rear seat of my squad car. When they obeyed my lawful order, Mr. Speaker, I didn't get hurt, the suspects didn't get hurt, and the public didn't get hurt.

When a law enforcement gives you a lawful order, obey her. Obey a lawful order. When a law enforcement officer says: Put your hands on the steering wheel, then put your hands on the steering wheel.

When a law enforcement officer says: Sit on the sidewalk for safety purposes, then sit on the sidewalk.

When a law enforcement officer says: You are under arrest for domestic assault, obey a lawful order, Mr. Speaker.

As a society, where do we want to be? Judge, juror, and executioner on the streets of the United States of America?

It is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, we have to change, and it is up to leadership in our Nation's Capital and elected leaders at all levels in every State.

To the men and women who wear the uniform in this great Nation: I will tell you it is a noble, honorable profession. No matter what you hear from some folks that you are not wanted, it is unwarranted, it is not a good career, I will tell you: I spent 23 years as a police officer in the city of Duluth, Minnesota. I helped build a community policing program. I love the profession, and I enjoyed the profession.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the darkest hours of someone's life we deal with, and we deal with it with compassion and professionalism. It is not easy, but we need the good men and women.

Mr. Speaker, we also need to hold people who perform violent acts against innocent citizens accountable. We need prosecutors to hold them accountable when they perform a violent crime.

In closing, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we in this country had better reshape our thinking and our focus toward safety of all of us, and we do that by supporting the men and women in uniform. We do that by electing leaders at all levels of government who support law enforcement.

We in law enforcement want to be held accountable, but let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. Right now we have a rogue attorney general in Hennepin County, Minnesota, who is bringing murder charges against Minnesota Trooper Ryan Londregan for what he did to save his partner's life, and the use of force expert opined to that, that Trooper Londregan used lawful force to save his partner's life. He is now being charged in Hennepin County by an anti-law enforcement attorney general.

In fact, she can't even find an attorney in her own department, Mr. Speaker, to prosecute the case. She is spending over $1 million of taxpayer money, Mr. Speaker, to come to this town and find a prosecutor. It is unbelievable.

The people of Minnesota and Hennepin County should understand what is happening to that good man, that good trooper and his family. I will stand up to the good men in law enforcement no matter what I have to do, no matter what I have to do.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this: If we don't have a change of attitude toward law enforcement, then this country is going to be in trouble.

Before I close, I want to ask--this is an ask to the American people, to every American: The next time you see a law enforcement officer, I want you to look her in her eye and tell her: Thank you for your service. We appreciate you.

She will take that response and carry it with her the rest of the day, the rest of her shift, and forever.

We need to show appreciation.