Expressing support for local law enforcement officers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose and to deplore this partisan resolution. As you just heard, H. Con. Res. 96 is another tiresome and loathsome exercise in partisan MAGA polemics.

Unlike H. Res. 1252, which was honestly written to honor law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, and which received an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House just a few hours ago, this nonbinding rhetorical resolution desecrates the solemnity and abandons the nonpartisanship of Police Week by scrawling a bunch of false and inflammatory anti-Democratic and pro-Trump graffiti on what has always been, until now, a simple nonpartisan resolution expressing the national consensus supporting law enforcement.

It is not difficult to write these resolutions in a way that garners widespread bipartisan support. Last year, Congress passed H. Con. Res. 30, a bipartisan resolution expressing our mutual common support for local law enforcement. The year before that, together we passed H. Res. 1213, condemning calls to defund the police and violence against law enforcement officers.

We have always strived for bipartisanship in these resolutions on Police Week to show that the whole community is together. But just as 21 Republicans voted against the Congressional Gold Medal for officers who defended this Capitol and this Chamber against rioters and insurrectionists on January 6, 2021, now, the Republicans bring forward a resolution designed not to unify but to divide.

The resolution before us invites us to endorse a tired, false, cliche-ridden partisan claim about defunding the police when, in fact, it is Democrats who have repeatedly promoted robust funding for law enforcement, while congressional Republicans, the Trump administration, and Elon Musk have cut funding for law enforcement and public safety programs that actually work as they slashed $500 million from State and local crime-fighting and victim assistance grants and programs under the DOGE and Elon Musk's crusade against the Federal Government.

The resolution also invites us to sign on to the demonstrably false claim that the Trump administration's focus on restoring law and order has contributed to a notable decline in homicide rates. The significant decline in violent crime in major cities over the past couple of years has nothing to do with the Trump Presidency as the resolution asserts and everything to do with the Democrats they denounce and the Biden Presidency's investment in State and local law enforcement.

In fact, homicides skyrocketed during the first Trump administration, and the historic nationwide decrease in violent crime began during the Biden administration and was the result of Democratic-led investments in public safety through both the American Rescue Plan, which House Republicans unanimously opposed, and the historic Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

Thanks to these sweeping investments in public safety and our common security, cities leveraged Federal funds and innovation to pursue a variety of effective programs to combat violent crime, with some cities recording the lowest murder rate since the 1960s, or even before that.

Madam Speaker, instead of restoring law and order, as the resolution claims, the current administration has systematically undermined law enforcement and jeopardized public safety without any objections from the party that claims to back the blue. The administration canceled millions in critical grant funding that supported State and local law enforcement. It reassigned more than 25,000 Federal agents tasked with fighting organized crime, terrorism, and human trafficking away from their missions in order to do immigration roundups.

The administration invaded American cities with a lawless paramilitary force, unleashing chaos and deadly violence on U.S. citizens, like Renee Good and Alex Pretti, under the pretense of fighting the worst of the worst. The administration stopped enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, announced that in its first week in office.

It fired dozens of experienced Justice Department lawyers and FBI agents just because they participated in the largest criminal investigation and prosecution in American history against the people who attacked this Chamber and the Capitol and the Congress and the Vice President on January 6, 2021.

This administration has also pardoned dozens of white-collar criminals and fraudsters, including the former President of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernandez, an international narcotrafficker who brought 800,000 pounds of cocaine into America, saying he would shove it up the noses of the gringos, and he was going off to jail for decades when President Trump decided to pardon him for reasons unknown.

He has released people from prison from January 6 who went on to commit serious new crimes against our people, such as Mr. Johnson who got out because of his Trump pardon and went on and sexually assaulted two 12-year-old children and now has been sentenced to life in prison because of that. Those kids' lives have been irrevocably altered by the mass pardon of all of these people that included armed robbers,

violent felons, domestic abusers, you name it, and a lot of them are back at it right now.

Madam Speaker, the administration has repeatedly threatened to cut off funding for State and local law enforcement in numerous jurisdictions and attempted to commandeer State and local police officers and resources to do the Federal Government's job at State and local expense. All of this compromises public safety and is an insult to the officers who work to keep us safe.

Republicans in Congress have done nothing to put the brakes on Donald Trump's weak-on-crime agenda, and we were going to give him a chance. The fact that he has 34 Federal criminal counts that he is convicted of himself doesn't mean he had to be soft on crime, but he is soft on crime, and we are not going to help the Republicans pull the wool over America's eyes. We are not going to do that to salvage their leader who is sinking like a stone in public opinion polls for his illegal tariffs, his unconstitutional war, his soaring inflation, and runaway corruption throughout the government.

Donald Trump has a staph infection, and America can see it every day. House Republican appropriators recently rejected the Trump administration's proposal to increase ATF's budget by 4 percent and agent head count from 2,400 to 3,000 agents in the coming fiscal year. Instead, they want to cut ATF's budget by $285 million, which would leave ATF with even fewer resources to support State and local police as they work to prevent and investigate and prosecute gun crimes.

Meaningless polemics against leftist activists and progressive politicians have no place in a resolution purportedly meant to honor law enforcement. This is the first time that any majority has fallen into the political trap, but they can't help themselves because they are so desperate because of the plummeting poll numbers of Donald Trump and his administration.

Now that you raise it, it is worth noting that Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have actually voted to defund the police in the 119th Congress. H.R. 7640, the Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026, would strip Federal funding from jurisdictions that have laws placing any limits on State and local law enforcement officers' involvement in Federal immigration matters despite the fact that immigration enforcement is the job of the Federal Government and not an unfunded mandate that can be put on the States and cities and localities.

All of this undermines public safety. I cannot support this resolution, which lies about Republicans and this administration's real record on crime and public safety. The observance of National Police Week and Peace Officers Memorial Day marks a time of solemn remembrance when our Nation should come together to honor the courage, sacrifice, and dedication of our law enforcement officers and personnel, and promote awareness of their service to our communities.

Let's stand united and reject this shameful effort to inject divisive partisan politics into this resolution and this week.

If you want something that can bring us together, please support the bill that I introduced today to create a fund to compensate the law enforcement officers who defended the Republic, this Capitol, the Congress, the Vice President against that violent attack on January 6, 2021. They continue to suffer the physical, medical, psychological effects of that atrocious attack.

The Trump administration wrote a check for nearly $5 million to the family of Ashli Babbitt despite the fact that there were two different investigations which determined that the police had acted reasonably, lawfully, and honorably. Yet, they just gave them a check for $5 million.

What do the families of the officers who defended our lives get? So far they have done nothing. We are introducing legislation to make that happen, and I hope everybody in this body who really believes that law enforcement should be stood by and should be defended in their work will get with us on this resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), who is the ranking member of the Crime and Federal Government Surveillance Subcommittee.

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

The worst Congress in modern American history cannot even write a resolution praising law enforcement that maintains bipartisan support-- something that every other Congress, Democratic or Republican, has been able to do--because they are so desperate to cover up their miserable record.

The Trump administration has done nothing more to improve public safety than it has done to lower the ruinous inflation they unleashed on us with their illegal tariffs or to open up the Strait of Hormuz, which was closed only because of the illegal war Trump has already spent $29 billion of our money on.

Well, our colleagues have some very fine rhetoric about how much they love public safety. So why don't we look at their fiscal year 2027 budget proposal. They won't fess up to the fact that

they just slashed $500 million out of local and State crime fighting and victim assistance grants, but let's talk about the future.

Well, what does their fiscal year 2027 budget proposal say? It proposes significant funding cuts for grant programs under the Office on Violence Against Women, including a $14 million cut to transitional housing grants and a $15 million cut to legal assistance grants to help survivors and their children.

They want to cut 62.1 percent, nearly a half a billion dollars from the discretionary budget request for COPS, which would translate into complete elimination of the anti-methamphetamine task forces, the anti- heroin task forces, the Community Policing Development Project, de- escalation training, and the dramatic reduction in STOP School Violence, and other crime-fighting projects.

So you are talking about defunding the police and defunding criminal justice. That is what their proposal is for next year.

They want to cut millions of dollars from successful programs to fund the Office on Violence Against Women, of course. For example, they want to cut millions from the Financial Assistance to Victims Program. They want to cut from consolidated youth-oriented programming, access to sexual assault nurse exams $12 million and on and on.

That is their budget.

They want to cut $538 million from the Byrne Discretionary Community Project Grants in the Department of Justice budget. They want to eliminate the Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative whose great successes they want to take credit for. They want to cut $50 million from that.

They want to cut $17 million in grants from the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes community policing program. And it goes on and on. You don't have to go and make up a bunch of mirages and ghosts about defunding the police. That is in their budget for next year. They want to dismantle one criminal justice program after another.

But of course, they want to increase the military budget to $1.5 trillion, which they all leapt up to support even before hearing about what specific military projects and arms projects were contained in it. They want $1.5 trillion for that budget as they continue to drive our budget deficit up to the heavens. They have added already more than $3.5 trillion to the debt. So it is fiscally irresponsible, and it is irresponsible from the standpoint of public safety.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserved the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I am prepared to keep going. I am not afraid to keep the debate going. Whatever the gentleman pleases.

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

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, which they propose to slash and essentially dismantle, is responsible for advancing the practice of community policing at the State, local, territorial, and Tribal levels. The COPS Office awards grants to hire community policing professionals, that is something that they propose to gut.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close. He seems to be in a hurry.

Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

Look, it is unfortunate that we have reached this place, Madam Speaker. Every prior Congress has been able to honor the police on Law Enforcement Week. Yet, they insisted on scribbling polemical, partisan graffiti, attacking Democrats and Progressives and so on, using a nonbinding ceremonial resolution to try to pick a political fight, which is not very wise given their miserable record in terms of crime fighting.

One of the first things they did was they said they were no longer going to enforce the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Then they gutted anti-terrorism and counterintelligence programs in the Department of Justice. They pardoned 1,600 or 1,500 Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Klan members, violent rioters, and insurrectionists from January 6. Even his own Vice President urged him--or said he supposed the President was not going to pardon those who had committed violence, but he pardoned everybody.

Prior to Donald Trump, you know, the way the Presidents did it was there was a pardon office in the Department of Justice, and they would look at very specific requests and applications that came in for a pardon, and they would try to judge whether the person was truly reformed, truly rehabilitated.

Every President up until Trump insisted that they actually pay off their fines and pay restitution to their victims. But no, not President Trump. He said: I am going to take all of them together. I am going to pardon them en masse, 1,600 of them. Some of them were armed robbers, domestic felons, violent assaulters. Some maybe it was a first offense, but they were all mixed in together, and then they got their pardon, and they were forgiven for all of their fines and all of the restitution that they owed to their victims.

Then the President continued that rampage with all of the white- collar criminals and fraudsters and drug dealers he pardoned. Some of them owed tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars. It was all forgiven. That money was, therefore, transferred from the victims of these crimes right back to the criminals. This is the person that they want to praise as being tough on crime and such a great law-and- order President.

We were willing to look--aside from the fact that he had 34 criminal convictions of his own and was an adjudicated sexual assailant under the civil law of New York--and say maybe he will actually invest in fighting crime. But no, it has been quite the opposite. He has been doing everything in his power to undermine criminal law enforcement. Now they want to take credit for what the mayors and Governors have been doing for several years now, which is causing a dramatic decrease in crime by investing in all of the programs that they have pulled the plug on.

They just slashed more than $500 million from Department of Justice grants going out to the States and the cities. You want to look for weak on crime? You want to look for defunding the police? Look no further. You found it in the Trump administration. Elon Musk and DOGE came right over to the Department of Justice and slashed $500 million from program moneys that were appropriated by Congress and programmed by the Department of Justice, and they said: Stop the delivery of this money. We are going to cut off these grants.

The reason they don't say anything about it is because they know it is true. We heard all about it in the Judiciary Committee. That is the real track record.

Now we see in their budget request for next year they want to continue to ravage the crime-fighting budget of the country.

Why did President Trump pardon the former President of Honduras who brought 400 tons of cocaine into America? Why? He brought in 800,000 pounds of cocaine. He said: We are going to shove it up the nostrils of the gringos. That is what he said. And Donald Trump pardoned him, saving him from decades in Federal prison.

How come they are not talking about that?

We wouldn't have brought any of it up if they had just come forward with

the same consensus, bipartisan resolution that we have always had. But no, they wanted to pick a partisan fight.

Well, they picked the wrong people, because we know what has actually been happening. We know who is standing strong for law and order and who is bringing us down into the mud of lawlessness and authoritarianism in the country.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to my colleague for a moment if he wants to respond about the pardon of the former President of Honduras, whether that is something that our colleagues on that side of the aisle support or not. I don't know if he is interested in responding to that.

Madam Speaker, I was just offering to yield if he wanted to respond to that question, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I reclaim my time.

We consider the safety of the people to be the highest law that there is, along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately, this administration has been trampling all of it. We saw what happened in Minneapolis where we had U.S. citizens shot down at pointblank range in broad daylight for exercising their First Amendment rights, the rights contained in the First Amendment of our Constitution, shot down in cold blood.

Then we saw their then-Attorney General, Ms. Bondi, come out and say that these people were engaged in acts of terror and had been threatening people, which was a lie, and she refused the opportunity to apologize for what she had done.

There will be a real investigation. There will be a real investigation of those homicides. There were only, up to that point, three homicides, three murders that took place in Minneapolis, in Minnesota, up until that point of the year, and two of them were committed by Federal agents, two of the three. Well, that is a pretty powerful statement about the law-and-order administration that they want to praise in this completely partisan resolution that they want to push through the House of Representatives today.

So the Constitution is under attack, right? They promulgate executive orders telling thousands of lawyers at different law firms they cannot enter Federal buildings, including Federal courthouses, which makes it difficult to practice law.

They have used their power of the Federal Communications Commission to force them to settle completely bogus, frivolous lawsuits that the President has brought against media companies. Then they have installed their minders, their little spies, into TV networks, like something out of Putin's Russia or Orban's Hungary.

They have been systematically undermining the free press in the country. They are attacking the Constitution, and they are attacking the Bill of Rights.

It is so bad that even their stacked-and-packed, gerrymandered Supreme Court has had to strike them down for things like their illegal, unconstitutional tariffs, their global trade war against the world, which has been ruinous for our economy, compounded only by his illegal, constitutional war on Iran where he usurped the power of Congress to declare war.

James Madison said it had to be the Representatives of the people to declare war, not a President, not a Vice President, not Tulsi Gabbard or their leaky chat group. No, it has got to be the Representatives of the people, because the kings were constantly plunging their people into wars of conceit and vanity and imperial plunder.

They have created lawlessness from the highest levels of the government all the way down to the streets, where they are pulling the plug on Federal grants to help State and local governments fight crime, while they pardon narcotraffickers, white-collar fraudsters, people scamming American citizens.

So we are going to have to try to restore real law and order in the country, and that begins at the top. That begins with the Presidency, and it begins with everybody who is in government.

I wish that we could just go ahead and honor law enforcement without all of the partisan graffiti they have scrawled all over the resolution. We would show just as before, you have an overwhelming vote when you do it the right way, and we honor the people who have served us.

I invite our friends to join us in honoring and standing by the men and women who defended us on January 6. One hundred fifty of them were wounded, injured, hospitalized, disfigured, and disabled. Some of them were disabled and forced out of police work because of the injuries inflicted by the mob that came here.

They have given nearly $5 million to Ashley Babbitt's family, despite the fact that two different investigations showed that the police had acted reasonably and lawfully in what they did.

How about millions of dollars to the families of the police officers who lost their lives as a result of that violence? Let's show for real that we are committed to law enforcement by standing by the police officers who defend us every single day.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this week, we welcome thousands of law enforcement personnel to Washington for National Police Week. We remember officers who lost their lives in service to our communities and our country, and we thank all officers who work to keep us safe while reflecting on how we can invest in law enforcement to better serve our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support this resolution because we strongly support our local law enforcement officers. Yet, we also strongly support our State, Federal, and Tribal law enforcement officers, as well. Why are these brave officers not part of this resolution? This is a strange development.

In the last Congress, the 118th Congress, we passed H. Con. Res. 40 to honor local law enforcement. We also passed H. Res. 363 in 2023 to recognize the police lives lost that year and the importance of funding and supporting all law enforcement, Federal, State, county, and local. These were followed by H. Con. Res. 106 and H. Res. 1213 in 2024, which did the same.

This year the majority has chosen to have us solely recognizing local law enforcement. Why is that? What explains this strange omission of the Federal police officers who serve us?

With President Trump back in office, the majority apparently now sees fit to honor only local officers and not the Federal law enforcement officers who fought so valiantly to protect every Member of this body and the Senate, our staffs, and our democracy on January 6, 2021. Apparently, their commitment to backing the blue is so weak that they now won't even mention Federal officers because they have to maintain the pretense that Capitol officers did something wrong by defending us against the violent rampage of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Three Percenters, and other extremist marauders who stormed the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.

Is that right or will the majority please prepare a resolution honoring Federal law enforcement, as well that we can bring to the floor?

This is one troubling sign among many of an ideological abandonment of our Federal law enforcement officers and there are more than 137,000 of them, not just the Capitol Police.

Speaker Johnson still refuses to hang a simple plaque honoring those officers as is required by Federal law. The bill mandating the creation and placement of the plaque, H.R. 2471, was signed into law on March 15, 2022, and the plaque was supposed to have been erected within 1 year of that, March 15, 2023.

The plaque is finished, it is ready to be placed, and it looks like this. It reads: ``On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this symbol of democracy on January 6th, 2021. Their heroism will never be forgotten.''

Well, it seems it is already being forgotten by the GOP majority or at least they want us to forget it. Are my friends so captive to conspiracy theories and revisionist fantasies about January 6 that they will not do the bare minimum to honor the police officers who fought tooth and nail to protect every person in this room who was there, including Members on my side of the aisle and Members on the other side of the aisle?

The people we are failing to honor by not hanging this plaque include at least 140 police officers who were beaten with poles, bats, American flags, Trump flags, Confederate battle flags, and their own shields. These are people who lost fingertips. They suffered concussions, broken jaws, and broken ribs. They had heart attacks and strokes. They sustained multiple other violent injuries and suffer from them, many of them, to this day, in one of the worst days of injuries for law enforcement officers in the United States in this century.

This affront is now adding further symbolic insult to the grievous injury that began at the beginning of this administration. President Trump granted full pardons to more than 1,500 insurrectionists and rioters and commuted the sentence of the rightwing extremists who spearheaded the attack on this Chamber and on the police officers who defended us.

More than 600 of those defendants whose pardons are full, complete, and unconditional were charged with assaulting or obstructing law enforcement officers. Now President Trump, backed by his own Justice Department, thinks that the violent insurrectionists should be compensated, not the police officers, but rather the people who perpetrated this assault on America.

President Trump said: A lot of the people in the government really like that group of people. He is creating a compensation fund not for the officers

and their families who fought and suffered and several died to save our country but for the domestic terrorists, as leaders of the Republican Party described them at the time, who tried to destroy it.

That is the decision, to cast his lot with the Proud Boys and other extremists that he incited on that day.

Many of the officers who served on January 6 feel betrayed by the officials whose lives they saved that day. Take former U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell who was nearly crushed to death on January 6.

Sergeant Gonell is an Army veteran from the Iraq war and was upholding his oath to defend and protect the seat of our Nation's government. He said he saw violence on that day here at the Capitol far worse than anything he experienced fighting for America abroad.

Despite the fact that he and many other officers nearly lost their lives and now face lifelong injuries that have forced him out of the line of police work, they still cannot get approved for Public Safety Officers' Benefits, which provide disability benefits to officers catastrophically injured in the line of duty.

As Sergeant Gonell recently told my staff, Trump is treating the rioters like they were the ones defending the Capitol. He noted that at every turn when Republicans could honor the bravery of law enforcement officers that day, they have instead chosen to do nothing.

Of course, if my colleagues across the aisle want to focus on local law enforcement, then I might ask why we are simply honoring them with this concurrent resolution and not taking more meaningful action, like restoring millions of dollars in Federal grants that help support them that were recently terminated by the Department of Justice at the direction of DOGE and Elon Musk.

Those grants supported programs like the rural violent crime reduction initiative, which delivered financial assistance directly to dozens of rural law enforcement agencies across America and allowed agencies to upgrade technology and equipment, hire and deploy personnel, support victim services and crime prevention programming, and fill in other gaps in policing for small, rural, underfunded police agencies.

We should be grateful for all of our officers, Federal, State, county, and local, who help keep us safe while people are in their communities and while Members of Congress come to Washington, D.C. We should be grateful for all of them.

Let's join together to uplift all law enforcement officers whether they are local or State, Tribal, or Federal, and let's support them symbolically with our words but more importantly with our actions. Let's restore all of the funding, the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been cut or that face cuts by this new administration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee denounce the assault, the violent assault, on Congress, the Capitol, our police officers on January 6, 2021. I wonder if he would work with me to help enforce the law that was signed on March 15, 2022 by President Biden for a plaque to be placed in honor of the police officers who served us so valiantly and so bravely and saved our lives on that day.

It was supposed to have been up by March 15, 2023, and the Speaker simply has remained noncommittal and indifferent. The plaque is actually completed. It is ready to be put up. We can show it again. It is not as big as this poster, but it is the smallest token of recognition and honor that we should be able to extend to the Capitol officers, many of whom are still with us on the force, for their sacrifice and the sacrifice that their families made based on their work that day defending us.

I wonder if the chairman of the Judiciary Committee would follow through on his very impressive statement that we all denounce the violence of any kind against officers, including the more than 140 Capitol officers who were wounded, injured, hospitalized, some of them permanently disfigured and maimed on that day as well as officers around the country.

Now, on the point about defunding the police. Look who is defunding the police: Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and their silent partners in Congress are defunding the police. They just terminated $500 million worth of grants, lost funding from the Department of Justice providing Federal support for local violence reduction by community police, community policing and prosecution, victim services, juvenile justice, child protection, substance abuse and mental health treatment, corrections and reentry, justice systems enhancements, research and evaluation, and

other State, county, and local level public police and safety functions.

I brought this to the attention of the Judiciary Committee because, again, this was an operation by DOGE. We have got a Federal District Court opinion from northern California saying that DOGE basically has no legal status because it wasn't created by Congress. It might be a completely renegade operation in an attempt to create a fourth branch of government.

In any event, those of us who voted for the money, and that is people on both sides of the aisle, voted for the money to be distributed by the Department of Justice to local grantees didn't even know about this. I shared with the chairman and with all the members of the committee, the one name of the DOGE employee, an unelected bureaucrat, a juvenile bureaucrat from Silicon Valley who worked his way up through Tesla and so on, and they ended up in DOGE, cut hundreds of millions of dollars to local police. They defunded the police.

DOGE defunded the police. Donald Trump defunded the police. I introduced an amendment to try to restore every single grant that they cut off in severing that Federal investment in local police.

My colleagues uttered not a word, not a word in opposition to my amendment, but they all voted against it simply because they are walking the line with Elon Musk right off the edge of the Constitution because there is no constitutional grounding for anything that guy is doing.

They walked the line behind Elon Musk and Donald Trump, and they just defunded hundreds of millions of dollars from community law enforcement and public safety, so don't give me that lecture about defunding the police, which our side has never supported, but their side has just colluded in right now in terms of what the Department of Justice did.

That doesn't even get into their attempt to dismantle completely the ATF, shut down critical functions in the Department of Justice that protect us from foreign involvement in our elections, to take down the kleptocracy task force and so on. I don't want any lectures coming in our direction, either.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start just by asking my friend from Ohio whether he is referring to me when he uses the word ``you'' or if he is referring more generally to some other people because I would categorically deny having done any of those things.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Well, the gentleman refers exclusively--and I think he is aware of this because he is an extremely clever debater--to things that different local governments did or did not do. I don't know what Denver, Colorado, or Burlington, Vermont, did. I know what the United States Congress does, and we never defunded the police, and we never tried to defund the police.

On the other hand, my good friend, I believe, participated in--and if he didn't, I am happy to stand corrected, but I know a bunch of his colleagues said they wanted to defund the FBI, just like those who want to defund the ATF and shut it down right now, so that is a reality.

In any event, why don't we talk about what Congress can actually do? The President's new budget proposes to cut--so this is something that my colleague and I could agree on--$1 billion across 40 Department of Justice grant programs which support local police departments to reduce violent crime, hate crime, and crime against women.

Would my colleague work with me to oppose that suggestion in the President's budget? They want to cut $646 million from FEMA for violence and terrorism prevention. Why do they want to do that? I have no idea.

They want to cut $545 million from the FBI, cutting its workforce by more than 2,000 personnel. That sounds like defunding law enforcement to me.

I know they don't seem to be as fond of Federal law enforcement as they are of local law enforcement, but do they really want to cut more than half a billion dollars from the FBI to be fighting criminals and terrorists? For the life of me, I don't understand how they can do that while they swear fealty to law enforcement. It just makes no sense.

They want to cut $491 million from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, making our cyber and physical infrastructure far more vulnerable to attack by foreign bad actors like Vladimir Putin and President Xi and Kim Jong-un. I know there are some people in high levels of office who are fond of those people, who write valentines to Kim Jong-Un, but the rest of us would like to be protected from them. We shouldn't be dismantling the cybersecurity infrastructure of America.

They want to cut $212 million from the DEA. Can you imagine? If a Democratic President had proposed any of this, they would be screaming, their hair would be on fire, but Donald Trump proposed it, and they just mumble along like it is no big deal.

What about all of these efforts to defund Federal law enforcement, like the DOJ, FEMA, FBI? Will our colleagues work with us to restore that money?

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

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

Yes, the record is becoming increasingly clear here. My colleagues don't want to do anything about the dismantling of hundreds of millions of dollars of funds that we appropriated at the Department of Justice that have been mysteriously deleted by a DOGE employee from local law enforcement. These are grants that go to local police departments and victim assistance agencies all over the country. They got rid of that.

Then the President comes forward with a budget that will cut more than $1.5 billion, maybe $2 billion from local law enforcement to go after violent crime, hate crime, to defend the victims of rape and sexual assault, and my colleague changes the subject once again to talk about weaponization.

We have never seen weaponization of the government like what we have seen under Donald Trump and his Department of Justice. The first thing they did was they got rid of a dozen experienced veteran criminal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's office and the Department of Justice simply because they had worked to prosecute January 6 insurrectionists and rioters.

Yes, let me repeat that. They fired prosecutors for doing nothing more than their jobs to prosecute the criminals who beat the daylights out of our police officers, and they sacked all of those prosecutors. They were some of the most experienced veteran prosecutors that we have in the U.S. Attorney's office. Then he named to be the acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin. He was just forced to withdraw that nomination because he was standing by a Neo-Nazi Holocaust revisionist who said that Hitler's problem was that he didn't finish the job. He also said that those who are born with disabilities should be killed at birth. Ed Martin called him a great man and a great leader.

He withdrew the nomination, but still he put Ed Martin in the Department of Justice in a position that is not subject to Senate confirmation. They have weaponized the Department of Justice. They have weaponized the Department of State. They are going after anybody they describe as a political enemy. Ed Martin was writing letters to Members of Congress when he didn't like what they had to say.

We have never seen weaponization of the government like what is taking place right now. They took the U.S. Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer, and they sacked her because she refused to take the position that Mel Gibson should get his guns back. That wasn't part of her job, but they tried to conscript her to it. The pardon attorney refused to do it because she said that was not her job and there were too many questions about domestic violence episodes.

If you want to have a separate hearing on weaponization of the government under Donald Trump, let's do it. In the meantime, let's support local law enforcement and let's support Federal law enforcement. Let's have another resolution praising all law enforcement for what they do, and let's get that plaque up.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1275, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 96) expressing support for law enforcement officers, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 96.

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

Mr. Speaker, we owe a great deal of gratitude to the men and women in law enforcement who make sacrifices every day. They miss dinners, holidays, parent-teacher conferences, sports games, performances, and celebrations with their families so that the rest of us can live safely. These brave officers are the thin blue line that stand between our communities and chaos.

For years, radical Democrats championed the defund the police movement, slashed police budgets, and demonized entire police departments while crimes skyrocketed. Murders, carjackings, and retail thefts surged. We also saw leftist rogue prosecutors utterly fail to enforce the laws and uphold their oath of office. They refused to prosecute entire categories of crime, implemented cashless bail, released violent offenders back into society, and the list goes on and on.

We have seen Democrats support sanctuary city policies and openly side with illegal immigrants over American citizens. Sanctuary jurisdictions proudly shield criminal aliens from Federal immigration authorities, regardless of the cost to the residents. Officials from these jurisdictions tie the hands of their very own police departments. We have seen time and again how these jurisdictions refuse to honor an ICE detainer, release a criminal alien back onto the streets, and then that alien commits another heinous crime. Almost one-third of the country lives in a sanctuary jurisdiction. That is roughly 100 million Americans.

Where these failed policies took hold, chaos followed. Thankfully, the Trump administration has restored law and order. Because of President Trump, the border is secure.

Because of President Trump, the homicide rate has declined an average of 21 percent in 35 major U.S. cities, reaching the lowest level recorded in over a century.

Because of President Trump, we have seen the lowest number of drug overdoses since 2019.

These historic results prove that when we enforce the law and prioritize prosecuting violent crime, American communities become safer for everyone. When law enforcement officers are empowered to do their jobs, American communities become safer for everyone. When politicians support the police instead of siding with radical activists, American communities become safer for everyone.

To every police officer watching today, America sees you. We thank you. We stand with you.

I urge my colleagues to support our brave men and women in law enforcement, reject policies that make Americans less safe, and support this resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, you know, when I hear the term ``national consensus,'' what seems to be national consensus is that the Democrats were the ones that promoted defund the police. I have here a list of cities who cut a total of $1.71 billion to promote police. They did that because they wanted to defund the police.

I hear that there is a consensus bill. The Democrats couldn't even get a unanimous vote on the bill we just voted on just an hour or so ago. I mean, it is just hokum. It is just flat out hokum.

Well, the national consensus is that Democrats are well-known to have supported the defund the police movement.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn), the sponsor of the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to think back on 2020 as being the measuring line that you are coming from because, when you remember, that is the year of George Floyd. That is the year of CHAZ, CHOP, and rioting, wholesale violence, the Portland courthouse under siege, and the defund police movement, even by some across the aisle in Congress.

What has happened since President Trump has come in? Violent crime rates have declined significantly in major cities across the United States. That is what this resolution says at one point. Let's get here.

Do they deny the drop? No, they don't deny the drop. They just don't like the fact that Donald Trump gets some credit for it. The TDS has been on display.

The numbers are clear. Why does falling crime under renewed law and order priorities threaten the worldview of Democrats? It shouldn't.

In Chicago, for instance, in 2025, homicides plunged 29 percent after Donald Trump was elected, from 587 in 2024 to 417 last year.

In Columbus, Ohio, in the same period, rapes dropped 39 percent, from 1,116 down to 678.

In Houston, ag assaults fell 17 percent, from 18,590 to 15,378.

Robberies in L.A. dropped 15.3 percent, from 8,593 to 7,278.

New York City recorded the fewest shooting victims and shooting incidents in its entire recorded history in 2025.

Democrats spent years telling us that backing the police, enforcing laws, and rejecting soft-on-crime nonsense wouldn't work, that it was racist, outdated, or somehow made things worse. Yet, the American people can see the results with their own eyes--safer streets, fewer victims. That is what is specifically stated in this resolution.

What don't they like about it? It mentions Donald J. Trump. It is that simple. They should be coming along with us.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I said last time I was prepared to close. I assumed that was his closing.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. Is the gentleman prepared to close?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

We heard a lot about pardons. It is not mentioned at all in this resolution.

But it is real fun, you know, when you think about pardons, and I have got article after article here. There is a whole stack of them right here of the more than 3,000 people that President Biden pardoned, some massive fraudsters who never paid their restitution. Odd, isn't it?

Quite frankly, Joe Biden was going on a pardon-issuing spree to such an extent he even pardoned a few Members of Congress. How about that. That is pretty interesting to me.

Let's see. If you didn't know what was in this resolution, as most Americans don't and anybody watching, you would think this is all about how heinous of an individual Donald J. Trump, our President, is. You saw that TDS on display.

But I am going to do a favor for everybody. I am going to go over the 11 clauses in this resolution that honor police officers.

By the way, Democrats couldn't even get a unanimous vote when the resolution we just voted on listed fallen officers. They think we are creating partisanship with this. That is not the case.

Facts are stubborn things. They don't want to honor police. They were the party of defund the police.

Let's take a look at the clauses.

Number one: ``Whereas the brave men and women in law enforcement work tirelessly and relentlessly to safeguard the communities they are sworn to protect, serving as the backbone of public safety across our Nation.''

What do my colleagues on the other side find controversial here? What is it? Do they deny that officers work tirelessly? Do they deny that communities depend on them? Because if you can't even affirm this, your problem isn't with the resolution. It is with reality.

Number two: ``Whereas law enforcement officers bear the critical responsibility of upholding the rule of law and maintaining the safety, stability, and public order upon which our communities depend.''

What offends them, the rule of law part or the idea that safety and stability actually matter? They never touched on this.

Number three: ``Whereas law enforcement officers routinely and selflessly risk their own lives and safety to combat crime, remove dangerous and lethal drugs from our streets, and stand in defense of the most vulnerable among us.''

What is their objection? What is their objection? Do they think law enforcement don't risk their lives, that drugs aren't lethal or that the vulnerable don't deserve that shield? They

should tell the widows and orphans of fallen officers why this fact bothers them.

Number four: ``Whereas law enforcement officers strengthen our communities through outreach, mentorship, crisis response, and countless daily acts of service that frequently go unrecognized.''

Which of these acts of service do they reject? The mentorship? The crisis intervention?

Number five: ``Whereas from resolving neighborhood disputes to checking in on elderly residents and guiding youth programs, officers provide a quiet and steady presence that extends far beyond traditional law enforcement duties.''

Is it the neighborhood dispute resolution that you oppose or the very idea of a steady, positive police presence?

What is it that you oppose?

Number six: ``Whereas rhetoric and policies from leftist activists and progressive politicians seek to defund or dismantle local police departments, undermine public safety, and place both officers and the communities they serve at greater risk.''

I thought this was your goal. For years many of you and your allies championed it in the streets. You posted on official social media accounts. You introduced legislation and redirected budgets away from law enforcement. The defund the police movement wasn't some fever dream. It was your rallying cry.

Do you deny now that that rhetoric ever existed?

Do you deny that progressive politicians and leftist activists aggressively pushed these policies in cities across the country?

Do you deny the explosion in violent crime?

You can't spend years trying to kneecap, starve, and demonize the police and then act outraged when a resolution dares to call it what it was: a dangerous failure that hurt people.

Number seven: ``Whereas sanctuary city policies that restrict cooperation with Federal immigration authorities can compel local law enforcement agencies to divert already limited resources and actively encourage resentment toward local law enforcement.''

Again, I thought this was your goal. We have heard it loud and clear from dozens of your own politicians from Minnesota to Boston, California and beyond, people proudly declaring they will not cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement. They will shield the illegal aliens, even the worst of the worst: murderers, rapists, and gang members. They will keep them out on the streets rather than let ICE do its job.

Do they deny these sanctuary policies exist and deliberately restrict cooperation with Federal authorities?

Almost one-third of Americans live in sanctuary jurisdictions. You can't champion policies that protect criminals over cops and then act shocked when the resolution says sanctuary policies sabotage law enforcement at every level.

``Whereas the Trump administration's focus on restoring law and order has contributed to a notable decline in homicide rates, with levels reaching among the lowest recorded in over a century.''

Data is data, and facts are facts. A report by the Council on Criminal Justice says this: Homicides in 35 major cities declined by 21 percent from 2024 to 2025. Just in Washington, D.C., President Trump is protecting our citizens from failed progressive governance. We have seen incredible drops in violence. Homicides are down 52 percent. Sex abuse is down 48 percent, robbery is down 23 percent, and vehicle theft is down 56 percent. All crime overall is down 25 percent, and Washington, D.C., is on pace for roughly 42 murders this year, the lowest rates since at least 1930. Compare that to the 274 murders in 2023.

Number nine: ``Whereas drug overdose deaths in the United States have declined significantly, reaching their lowest levels since 2019.''

Which part of that is fake news to you? The decline? The significance? Or is it the timing as enforcement and border focus tighten?

Under Biden administration's catastrophic open-border policies, fentanyl poured across the southern border like never before, over 100,000 deaths, killing tens of thousands. That wasn't an accident. It was a predictable deadly result in prioritizing illegal immigration over American lives.

Now with the Trump administration's renewed focus on securing the border, cracking down on traffickers and backing law enforcement, the body count is falling. Lives are being saved. We are reversing that damage.

They should own their failure or at least get out of the way while we clean it up.

Number 11: ``Whereas law enforcement officers deserve our deepest respect, unwavering support, and profound gratitude.''

Let me ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you vote against this resolution, are you voting against gratitude for these men and women who deserve our grateful attitudes and thankfulness?

Explain it.

Mr. Speaker, he is out of order. He knows he is getting whipped, and that is why he is out of order.

Mr. Speaker, that is a perfect example of what happens when the Democrats cannot answer for their policies that have wrecked cities and demeaned police officers. They have to be rude and interrupt. They can't sit silent because they know that they are profoundly responsible for the results of their policies.

I want them to explain to every officer watching right now, explain to their families, and explain to their spouses who lost a partner and the parentless children and tell them why basic appreciation for the people who risk their lives is somehow too much to ask.

Tell them why they don't deserve respect. Tell them why they don't deserve support.

After everything, after your defund movement, you cheered. After the sanctuary policies you defended and you continue to defend, after the crime waves your ideology unleashed, and after watching this country bleed for years under your failed experiments of policies, you can't bring yourself to say a simple thank you.

Enough. The American people are done with your excuses. They are done watching you demonize the only people standing between them and anarchy.

We support our police. We will back the blue, and we will pass this resolution to send one unmistakable message: In America, law enforcement officers have friends, they have allies, and they have the unwavering gratitude of a grateful nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 30) expressing support for local law enforcement officers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 30.

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

Mr. Speaker, this week, we celebrate National Police Week. In so doing, we honor those officers who have been killed in the line of duty, as well as those who bravely serve their communities every single day.

More than 60 years ago, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation that designated May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that day falls as Police Week.

Thousands of law enforcement officers are visiting Washington, D.C., this week to honor their colleagues who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I extend my sincere gratitude to all local law enforcement officers and their families for their sacrifice and their service.

These police officers risk their lives every day to protect our communities, and they do this despite the obstacles and dangers that we all know that they face. Police officers rush into harm's way out of duty and devotion to their sacred oath: ``To Protect and Serve.''

The families of law enforcement officers also bear the burden of service through missed birthdays, school events, and sports games. This resolution is a small way in which we can show our thanks. I encourage all Members to take time to pray, show their support for, and say thank you to our local law enforcement heroes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell), who served in law enforcement as a sheriff, for his work in putting this together and sponsoring the resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: Republicans honor local law enforcement, Democrats defund them. Five years ago this summer, they spent the whole summer doing that. That is all you would hear from Democrats, got to defund the local police. We have been consistent. We have condemned violence every single time it happened whether it was January 6 or the summer of 2020. They haven't.

The summer of 2020, I still remember the guy standing in front of the burning building on CNN saying, this is a mostly peaceful protest. They spent the whole summer trying to defund the police, so don't give us the lecture.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell), the fine gentleman who served in local law enforcement, who was a sheriff, and who knows what it is like to go out there and protect his community, for sponsoring this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, you can try to rewrite history, but it just doesn't work. Let me just read off the Democratic-run cities that did defund the police.

Here is the game the Democrats want. All during the summer of 2020, they were saying: Defund the police. Democratic-run cities all over the country were doing so.

Now they say: Oh, but because crime went up when we defunded the police, we want Federal taxpayers to send us money to make up for the cuts we did there and spent the money elsewhere. That was the game.

If you don't believe me, here is the list:

Austin, Texas, $150 million cut;

Boston, Massachusetts, $12 million cut;

Burlington, Vermont, $1.1 million;

Denver, Colorado, $55 million;

Eureka, California, $1.2 million;

Hartford, Connecticut, $2 million;

Kansas City, Kansas, $42 million;

Los Angeles, $150 million;

Madison, Wisconsin, $2 million cut;

Minneapolis, $8 million;

New York City, $1 billion cut that summer;

Norman, Oklahoma, $865,000;

Oklahoma City, $5.5 million;

Philadelphia, $33 million;

Portland, Oregon, $16 million;

Salt Lake City, $5.3 million;

San Francisco, $120 million;

Seattle, Washington, $69 million;

Washington, D.C., $15 million--we know about the crime that has happened in this city; and of course, in the ranking member's home State of Maryland, Baltimore cut their police department $22 million. Now they are saying: Oh, make sure the Federal money keeps coming.

Look, I am not against some of these grant programs. We will look at all those. However, don't say you didn't defund the police. You did. Everyone knows you did, and you all talked about it, and you cheered it on. For the bad guys who harmed the police that summer when you were encouraging cities to cut the police, you were raising money to bail them out. Your Presidential candidate was raising money to bail them out. You can have all the revisionist history you want. The facts are the facts.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I was referring to that party that you belong to, not you personally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have not said I was for defunding the ATF or the FBI. What I have said, what the American people have said clearly is they don't want these agencies weaponized against the very people they are supposed to serve. We all know about that. Think about this, though, when you think about the FBI's budget, it is like $12 billion. More than half of that budget, more than half of the personnel at the FBI are focused on intelligence and counterintelligence.

I think most Americans probably think the FBI should spend most of its

resources on going after traditional crime, organized crime, bad guys, gang activity. I think that is probably where they think it should be, but, no, they are spending half their budget, half their personnel on surveillance of Americans. I think that is a little different.

How about the ATF? We all know the example of the ATF raiding Bryan Malinowski's home. Bryan Malinowski was the highest paid official in the Little Rock, Arkansas, municipal government. He ran the Bill and Hillary Clinton airport. He was a gun hobbyist. The ATF thinks he has done something wrong. Instead of just going and visiting him, coming to see him, picking him up at his work, taking him back to his house to execute the warrant, the search warrant, no, they had to kick in his door, predawn raid, 10 cars pull up. The first thing you see on the doorbell cam is them putting tape on the camera. Mr. Speaker, 53 seconds later, Bryan Malinowski has been shot in the head and subsequently dies.

I am for these agencies actually serving the taxpayers, not being engaged in things like that. We respect the police and want it done right. At the local level, God bless them. I have not been for defunding them. We are for honoring local police, like this good sheriff, this Member of Congress, and what they do day in and day out. That is what this resolution was about.

The other side, they want to come here and start talking about all kinds of things I didn't intend to. You heard my opening statement. You heard the gentleman's opening statement. However, the other side wants to go start attacking things.

Okay, fine. We are just setting the record straight. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I would emphasize what a fine resolution we have here sponsored by the gentleman from Mississippi, and we do. We all do appreciate the work of our law enforcement men and women who put that uniform on every day, risk their lives to protect our families, our communities, all the things that we care about.

We hope this resolution is a unanimous vote. We hope both sides support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for giving me time to speak on the floor today.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 96, which does a disservice to our law enforcement officers by using them simply in a political ploy.

This resolution takes cheap shots and spreads misinformation while not doing a single thing to help law enforcement or improve public safety, which should be our goal this and every National Police Week.

I will not repeat the misleading statements and half-truths in this resolution, but I will actually present some facts today.

It is a fact that it was the first Trump administration when our country experienced the largest increase in homicides ever recorded in a single year.

It is a fact that violent crimes, especially homicides, have been declining for nearly 4 years, beginning under the Biden administration, long before this administration took office.

It is a fact that this historic, yearslong effort to decrease crime began under a Democratic President and Democratic control of Congress, which allowed us to pass unprecedented investments in law enforcement and public safety through the American Rescue Plan Act and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

It is a fact that cities and States across the country, many of them led by Democratic mayors and Democratic Governors, used that funding to strengthen their approach to public safety by investing in their local law enforcement, but also in education, community centers, community violence intervention, social workers, mental health and substance abuse services, and more.

It is a fact that these efforts to improve public safety have allowed many cities to achieve the fewest murders since the 1960s or even earlier.

It is a fact that the Trump administration has repeatedly eliminated funding for public safety programs that we know work, including clawing back $500 million in public safety grants that were already awarded.

On top of that, the Trump administration has diverted more than 25,000 law enforcement officers to immigration enforcement and away from their jobs of investigating gun violence, drug trafficking, sex crimes, and other major offenses, leading criminal prosecutions to fall to their lowest points in decades.

This resolution does not invest a single dollar in effective policing. It does not equip police with modern technology to help them simply solve a crime. It does not invest in innovative, collaborative approaches to public safety. It does not provide assistance to help law enforcement agencies address the continuing crisis that they are facing in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers. It does not do anything to make our police officers safer on the job and more likely to return home to their families safe and sound at the end of their shifts.

That is what we should be doing here in the House during National Police Week. When Democrats controlled the House, that is exactly what we did. We passed bipartisan bills that were signed into law and are still improving law enforcement officer safety and wellness, and strengthening public safety. These bills include the Protecting America's First Responders Act, the Public Safety Officer Support Act, the COPS Counseling Act, and the Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act.

Make no mistake, my opposition to this resolution is not opposition to the statements in this resolution that we can all agree on, such as that our law enforcement officers work tirelessly to protect our communities. Indeed, I was proud to vote in favor of the bipartisan resolution that we actually passed today in support of law enforcement and honoring those who died while serving their communities, including my own.

Yet, I must oppose this legislation that seeks to score political points instead of investing in law enforcement and in our communities.

Madam Speaker, as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, I urge my colleagues to stand with me in opposing this resolution and to instead work with me on bills that will actually support law enforcement and improve public safety.