Expressing support for 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1275 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

The Rules Committee met yesterday and reported out a rule providing for consideration of five measures: H.R. 5626, the Cashless Bail Reporting Act; H.R. 6260, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act of 2025; H.R. 8365, the Monitor Accountability Act; H. Con. Res. 96, Expressing Support For Law Enforcement Officers; and H.R. 8469, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2027.

House Resolution 1275 provides for consideration of H.R. 5625, H.R. 6260, and H.R. 8365, each under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate for each bill, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees, and provides for each bill one motion to recommitment.

The rule further provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 96, Expressing Support For Law Enforcement Officers, under a closed rule with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8469, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2027, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. The rule provides 1 motion to recommit and makes 51 amendments in order.

This rule will provide for consideration of several important bills, Mr. Speaker, that I believe will improve the safety of our local communities and the law enforcement officers that serve them. It will also bring the first appropriations bill for fiscal year 2027 to the floor so we can begin the process of passing the bills before the September 30 end of the fiscal year.

First, I would like to start by saying thank you to our law enforcement officers, particularly since this week is Police Week. We honor our law enforcement officers and the men and women who gave their lives in the line of duty.

I am glad we are bringing bills to the floor this week to do Congress' part in helping and honoring law enforcement officers. Among those is H.R. 6260, the Keeping Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act. This bill provides commonsense accountability measures for charitable bail funds. These are organizations that use money given as donations to bail out defendants, many of whom have been charged with violent felonies or whom are repeat offenders.

Charitable bail funds have consistently helped release violent criminals back onto our streets where they have committed robbery, assault, kidnapping, and even murder in some cases.

H.R. 6260 closes loopholes that have allowed for potential fraudulent practices and include charitable bail funds as entities ``engaged in the business of insurance,'' thereby ensuring that charitable bail funds will be subject to the criminal provisions under Federal law that apply thereto.

Another bill in this rule is H.R. 5625, the Cashless Bail Reporting Act. This legislation requires the Department of Justice to publish an annual report listing the State and local governments that allow cashless bail for criminals who pose a clear threat to public safety.

Recently, destructive policies in some States and cities are allowed for the gradual elimination of monetary bail systems and, as a result, has led to increased crime. According to a March 2023 study conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the percentage of violent felony offenders who were rearrested increased from 62 to 72 percent.

The correlation is clear: Cashless bail policy leads to increased crime in our communities, and the American people should know if their local governments are participating in these ill-advised programs.

Additionally, this rule brings to the floor H.R. 8365, the Monitor Accountability Act. This bill provides for needed reforms for court monitors, which are independent officials whose job it is to conduct oversight during court proceedings. While many court monitors have performed their duties well, others have initiated unnecessarily long agreements and have charged government agencies with the expensive fees.

H.R. 8365 curbs the excesses of court monitors by imposing a maximum term of service, regulates the fee amount a monitor may charge, and sets general expectations for the court monitor industry. This bill codifies many of the recommendations that then-Attorney General Garland put into place after the Biden administration reviewed the Federal monitoring program.

This rule also brings up H. Con. Res. 96, a resolution that supports National Police Week by honoring the courageous law enforcement officers across our Nation who put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe.

This resolution expresses Congress' immense gratitude for the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers at every level. At a time when officers are facing growing dangers in carrying out their duties, it is important that the House stand in unison to honor these brave men and women.

Lastly, the rule provides for consideration of the first appropriations bill for fiscal year 2027, H.R. 8469, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The bill provides robust funding for military housing, services for children and military members, and maintenance projects for military base facilities.

This legislation also takes care of our veterans by fully funding veterans' healthcare program benefits, and investing over $2 billion in capital improvements for VA medical facilities and national cemeteries.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8469 also bolsters our national security through continued investments for military bases and infrastructure for advanced weapons systems in places like the Indo-Pacific, where it is imperative that we strengthen our capabilities vis-a-vis China. As we heard in the Rules Committee last night, this appropriations bill, the MILCON-VA bill, passed unanimously, 58-0, out of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with some interest. It sounds like he doesn't like the current occupant of the White House and has serious concerns about that, but it doesn't sound like he dislikes any of the bills that much because he didn't spend much time talking about them.

That is what this rule is about--bringing those bills to the floor. In the MILCON-VA appropriations bill that passed out of the Appropriations Committee unanimously, I grant you, there were things in there that Democrats didn't like and things in there that Republicans didn't like. Yet, as we heard last night in the Rules Committee, the Appropriations Committee came together. They all had to compromise on certain things, but they got the bill done, and they felt like it was, overall, a good bill. There were certain disagreements, but overall, they felt like it was a good bill.

Then, we are doing some things, and they may want to do more, but we are doing some things that are very positive for law enforcement and for our local communities that will help communities be able to better figure out what is going on, whether it be bail or the monitoring system, et cetera.

That is what we are discussing here today. There is lots of time in the leadership hours and in the morning hour to give 1 minutes, 5 minutes, or an hourlong speech. Yet, today, we are supposed to be discussing during this time period the rule that brings to the floor four bills that are good bills and an appropriations bill.

I am glad to hear that there is not a whole lot of consternation about the bills that we are presenting this rule on. While there may be disagreement on other items, I am glad that we are moving forward on that.

It is always tempting when you are here presenting a rule to get dragged into the cesspool or the thoughts that the other side wants to talk about, but that is what I am here to talk about: the bills that are in the rule that we are presenting today.

Apparently, they are pretty good. I know they don't like them 100 percent, but they must be pretty good, or they would have spent more time talking about them in the opening salvo of this debate on the rule. So, I think that should encourage all Members, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote for the rule.

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

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

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) said something last night about not having heard voices on our side of the aisle talking about the pardons, and Mr. Scott said: I did. I had a problem with it. That was Mr. Austin Scott from Georgia.

I would remind the gentleman that he and I had a colloquy in the Rules Committee on February 4, 2025, on that same subject where I indicated that I had significant concerns about pardoning folks who had assaulted police officers.

It is not fair. That was something they pulled up because I am a member of the Rules Committee, and they brought it up in the Rules Committee meeting because I made a comment to the media in my home district. I am sure there are lots of other Republicans who have done the same, raised some concerns, raised some issues, and as a result, the White House came out with some explanations. People can choose to accept or not accept those explanations. It is what it is. But a number of us did raise concerns about that at the time.

Now, that being said, we have some bills before us today that are good bills. That is what we are supposed to be talking about.

We have got bills that deal with monitoring of courts. We have got bail bills that we are dealing with. There are a number of things. We have got a resolution that expresses Congress' support for our law enforcement, which I think we are all in agreement on, and the gentleman said as much that we all support our local law enforcement and our law enforcement folks out there.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, let's look at these bills. That is what we are debating now is whether or not to bring these bills to the floor. I think all the bills that we presented should be brought to the floor. We can talk about other bills on another day, but these bills are appropriately before the House.

Then let's talk about the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies funding bill from Appropriations, which passed unanimously out of committee.

My colleague has indicated that we are offering a handful of amendments. Now, I have managed a couple of these rules before, and some of them have been closed. He consistently says: You haven't allowed any amendments, and now he depicts the amendments that we are allowing as a ``handful.'' A majority of those--in fact, it is a supermajority of those that were theoretically in order, and it is 51.

Now, by my count, Mr. Speaker, that is 10 handfuls and a little bit more. It is not a handful of amendments. It is 10 handfuls. I would have to get a whole line of people here to hold on to all these amendments. We are going to hear debate on them, and we are going to have discussion about it.

So it gives you some idea of the hyperbole that my friends on the other side of the aisle are using when you take 51 amendments and depict them as a mere handful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I am to be pilloried on the floor of the United States House, let us get the facts correct.

First, I am sure that WJHL, a television station, would not appreciate being called a newspaper. Second, let me read you the first quote.

Griffith: ``I have mixed feelings. I personally think that some of those folks who assaulted police officers deserve some of the time they got.'' If I am to be pilloried, there is what I said.

The following week, in the Rules Committee, in response to questions from my colleague, I responded that I did not have every case in front of me, speaking of pardons. It is a difficult decision, and I would have had a hard time pardoning people who assaulted police officers on any occasion.

If I am to be pilloried, let's get the record straight, and I think the same would be true for many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle.

Let's talk about violent criminals because we have a bill in front of us today that will deal with that. We have the charitable--the phraseology is the ``charitable bail funds.'' We have a bill in front of us that will treat them as insurance.

Now, people may think at home, if they are watching this, what in the world do bail bonds have to do with insurance? Well, having been a criminal defense attorney, I can assure you that the insurance is to ensure that people show up for their court dates, and that is what bonds are for.

If you put up a bond, an insurance company usually writes that. If it is a corporate surety bond, that is usually what you have. Sometimes, you have property bonds, and there are other ways of doing it. If you have a corporate surety bond or a group comes forward and puts the money up for you, that group ensures that you will be present in court, or you forfeit the amount that you have put forward.

That is all fine and good. We have charitable groups out there, and they are looking at cases where you have people who can't afford it, but it is not a violent crime or something where there is a danger to the public. I understand that. That is what the bill does. It says we are going to treat them like they are insurance companies because they are, in fact, stepping into the shoes of an insurance company.

It is not grandma who is putting up her house, which many of my clients had their grandmas put up their houses to guarantee they would be present in court when they were supposed to be there to be tried for their offenses. They are acting like those corporate surety bonds. They are stepping into those shoes, and they ought to be treated accordingly under the law.

Then, we heard a whole litany--and I really didn't want to get into it--a whole litany of things that people did who were doing bad things on January 6 and did some bad things afterward, as well. I point out also that that is not before us at this very minute. What is before us is a bill on these charity bonds and cashless bonds.

When people are released on cashless bonds or artificially low bail, they have a greater propensity to reoffend, as I said in my opening. Because I feel compelled, for example, in Wisconsin, Darrell Brooks was released on a $1,000 bond after running over a woman with a vehicle, despite a lengthy criminal history and an additional outstanding warrant.

Brooks was previously charged with aggravated battery and had an outstanding warrant in Nevada after skipping bail for a sex-related crime. Then, on November 21, 2021, Brooks drove through a Christmas parade, injuring over 50 individuals, killing 6, 1 of whom was an 8- year-old child.

A March 2023 study, which I mentioned before, by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, found that approximately 72 percent of violent felony offenders who were released without bail were rearrested.

We could stand here and go through hours of this, but, Mr. Speaker, we have before us a good number of bills

that deal with trying to make our communities a little bit safer, giving people more information, and trying to make sure we are getting it right, trying to help our police officers and our local communities be safer.

These are all good bills. They may not do everything that everybody wants, but these bills before us and this rule that we are presenting are good bills. Then, we have the MILCON-VA bill, which passed out of the Appropriations Committee unanimously, 58-0.

I believe that we should pass these bills. The first step in doing that is passing the rule so we can bring the bills to the floor with set time for debate. There will be plenty of time for debate. There will be time on the MILCON-VA bill to go over amendments and to then consider as a House, as the House for the United States, whether or not we want to pass them. I think we should.

The first step is we have got to pass this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to all vote ``yes'' to bring these bills to the floor. My colleagues on the other side can debate whatever deficiencies they may see in the bills and have their time to tell the American people about those bills.

I really wish they would focus, when we are talking about a rule, on the rule to bring the bills to the floor and not all these other matters. I understand they want to talk about other things. I get it. That is the role of the minority. However, Mr. Speaker, as the majority, we need to pass this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I advise that whenever my colleagues are ready, I am prepared to close. I urge my colleagues to pass this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have before us the MILCON-VA bill. For folks watching at home, I will translate: military construction at our bases and Veterans Affairs, which is our VA hospitals, et cetera. That is what this rule has in it. It also has a number of bills related to law enforcement making things better: the monitoring systems, the bail systems, cashless bonds, et cetera.

These are good bills, and the rule ought to be passed, as I said before.

I would be remiss if I didn't speak about the fact that this is Police Week. It is one of the reasons why we have these bills and others in front of us.

This year, unfortunately, and it has happened before since I have been in office, an officer was killed in the Ninth Congressional District. Officer Hall was killed in an inmate attack at the River North Correctional Center in Independence, Virginia, which is in Grayson County in November of last year.

Two additional officers were attacked at that time. Both are physically doing okay, but, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how you ever get over an act of violence where you witnessed a colleague, a friend, a brother in law enforcement, being murdered.

That is really what we are about this week, and this rule promotes four bills that will help. It doesn't solve everything. It doesn't resolve everything. Jeremy Hall will be remembered in another resolution coming up this week that we will be voting on to honor fallen law enforcement officers.

We can also honor them all by taking these steps forward in trying to make our system better and recognizing that we probably ought not let violent felons, people who have already committed crimes, out on either no bond or low bond. We probably ought to make sure that the folks posting the bonds are capable and available to actually ensure the presence of the defendant at trial.

Mr. Speaker, I left this out earlier, and I apologize. It is a big part of the bail system. It is also to ensure their good behavior while out on bond. It is both presence on the court date and good behavior between the time the bond is posted and the time of that court date.

What the data shows us is that without one of these bills, there is an increase from 62 percent to 72 percent of recidivism. That helps our police officers and honors those who have been wounded, physically or psychologically, while serving in law enforcement, and those who answered the last call, like Officer Hall.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will vote to put this rule forward. I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment To H. Res. 1275 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 10. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 7711) to prohibit the use of Federal funds to

compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their

involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on

January 6, 2021, and for other purposes. All points of order

against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall

be considered as read. All points of order against provisions

in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the

Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion

to recommit.

Sec. 11. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX

shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 7711.

Sec. 12. The Clerk shall transmit to the Senate a message

that the House has passed H.R. 7711 no later than three

calendar days after passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his remarks. I honor

our law enforcement officers, as does everybody on the Democratic side. Yet, as I look at the list of bills that Republicans are bringing to the floor this week, I have to say that the American people deserve way, way better than this.

I mean, Republicans love to talk about supporting the police, but talk is cheap. Look at what they do. There is not a single penny of public safety funding in any of these bills--not one.

I mean, these guys are more interested in passing press releases than they are in passing meaningful legislation that will make a real difference in our communities.

At the same time, Donald Trump's own budget--get this--calls for massive cuts to programs that support law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, go read it yourself. The President's budget cuts 55 percent from Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants. It cuts more than 60 percent from the COPS program, a program that Trump's own Justice Department calls the cornerstone of our Nation's crime-fighting strategy. I mean, how is this possible?

Let's not forget that mere hours after he was sworn in, on his very first day in office, President Trump pardoned the violent criminals who attacked police officers on January 6. Let me say that again in case anyone forgot. Donald Trump, on his first day in office, pardoned felons who viciously beat police officers at the Capitol Building.

Mr. Speaker, some of the people he pardoned have since gone on to do even more terrible things, including in my district, where one of them was just rearrested on child pornography charges.

Don't come down to this Chamber and lecture people on law and order. The leader of the Republican Party wants to cut funding for public safety after he pardoned his own supporters who violently attacked police.

Talk is cheap around here. Look at what the radical, far-right people in charge of this government are doing. Look at how they vote. Look at their agenda for this week. Look at their priorities. This is another week without a single bill to make life more affordable and without a single bill to address the cost of living.

Why not? Well, the answer is simple: Republicans are not focused on your grocery bill. They are not focused on how much you pay at the pump. They are not focused on your rent, your healthcare, your utility bills, or your paycheck. They aren't focused on you.

They are focused on their obedience and obsession with Donald Trump, on his tariffs, his war, his billion-dollar ballroom, his arch, his reflecting pool paint job, and his golf course on the Potomac. Whatever he wants, they just say yes, and the rest of us pay the price for their radical MAGA extremism.

They ripped healthcare from millions of people in this country. They cut food assistance for kids, veterans, seniors, and Americans with disabilities. They raised the price of everything from utilities to groceries. They did it all to give tax breaks to their billionaire donors and rubberstamp every dumb idea that President Trump comes up with.

Yesterday, the President said the quiet part out loud. He finally told the truth about something. When asked a simple question of whether he thinks about the terrible economic situation that he has put American families into, thanks to his illegal war, do you know what he said? ``Not even a little bit.''

Now, let that sink in. The President of the United States of America was asked if he cares how badly he screwed up your family's finances with his stupid, illegal war, and his answer was: ``Not even a little bit.''

Your gas is $4.50 a gallon. He doesn't care, not even a little bit. Your pay isn't keeping up with inflation. He doesn't care, not even a little bit. Your health insurance is way up. He doesn't care, not even a little bit. Your fridge is empty until payday. He doesn't care, not even a little bit.

That is what he said. That is what he believes. That is how this radical, far-right majority in Congress is governing.

Those at the top are doing better than ever. The Epstein-class billionaires and special interests who write the campaign checks are doing great. They can't thank my Republican friends enough. Yet, the rest of us--for my constituents and for everyday people in this country--Donald Trump's economy sucks, and Republicans don't care, not even a little bit.

They tell themselves over and over again that everything is going well. Well, it is time for them to listen, to listen to the American people, who have had it up to here with these failed economic policies and who are sick and tired of a government that bends over backward to help those who are well-off and well-connected and turns a blind eye to the struggles of the working people in this country.

We have to do better. We have to do better.

Mr. Speaker, as we come together this week to honor our law enforcement officials, those who serve our communities and protect our communities, the least we could have done is brought a bill to the floor that would actually provide real help to our local police departments to be able to hire people and to be able to obtain the equipment that is necessary to protect our police officers.

Instead, we got a press release. We got a press release.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would just say to the gentleman there will be at least 5 hours of debate to talk about these less than impressive bills that he is bringing to the floor today. There will be even more debate on a handful of amendments that have been offered.

We are talking about the rule today, and the rule basically is Republicans' agenda for the week. It is not about lowering the price of groceries. It is not about dealing with the high price of gas. It is not about dealing with the rising costs of healthcare. Republicans'

agenda is to avoid talking about the real problems that Americans are facing as we gather here on the House floor.

I want to talk about your agenda, and your agenda sucks. I mean, I don't know how else to put it more plainly. It is a disgrace that my Republican friends spend more and more time trying to avoid dealing with the real issues that are hurting their constituents, but that is what their agenda is all about.

I get it. Everybody over there is afraid of the guy in the White House. Maybe you should be more afraid of your constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we defeat the previous question I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 7711, which would prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is Police Week, and Republicans will come to the floor, as we have just heard, and talk about how much they support and honor our law enforcement officers. We all support law enforcement officers who keep us safe and protect our communities. But what most, if not all, of these Republicans will fail to do, and have failed to do repeatedly, is condemn the pardons that Donald Trump issued to over 1,500 individuals that attacked this building and attacked our democracy on January 6. Many of them were convicted of violent felonies.

For those who weren't here that day, go back and look at the videos, and you will see exactly what I am talking about. Over 140 brave Capitol Police, the ones in this Chamber now, the ones protecting all of us every single day were injured. Some tragically died.

What did this President do on his first day in office? He pardoned every last one of those violent offenders.

Now, these rioters outrageously are seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages, claiming that the indiscriminate use of force by police officers repelling the attack caused them physical and emotional injuries. Are you kidding me? I mean, where is the outrage on the Republican side over this? It is a disgrace.

If my Republican colleagues cannot denounce the actions of the President's supporters that day or condemn the pardons maybe--maybe, at least they will vote to ensure that these convicted felons aren't awarded millions of taxpayer dollars by the Trump administration as a reward for attacking police officers. I will give them a chance to do that with the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross) to discuss our proposal.

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

You have got to love these guys. I remind everybody, especially those who may be watching this on TV, that four out of the five bills that we are considering today are under completely closed rules, number one.

Number two, I appreciate the gentleman expressing some concern about what happened on January 6. He said that some of them, you know, expressed their concern about the President's pardon publicly, so I just kind of Googled what my colleague from Virginia said to his local newspaper. He said that he has mixed feelings about President Trump pardoning those who were charged in connection with the January 6 attack on the Capitol.

I don't know what ``mixed feelings'' means, but if my friend were genuinely outraged by what happened that day and by the pardoning of these people who violently attacked the police officers that were defending us that day, then I guess my question to the gentleman would be: Then why did you vote consistently against hanging a plaque honoring those police officers who protected our lives that day?

Again, I find the silence on the other side of the aisle not only in regard to

what happened in this Chamber on January 6--I find it particularly disturbing--but the silence in the aftermath of Donald Trump pardoning all of these criminals.

Again, we have police officers who were severely wounded. Some ended up losing their lives. I mean, if you have objections and you have concerns, and even if you have mixed feelings, whatever that means, about the President pardoning all of these people, then does that mean that the gentleman will support our amendment that we are bringing up here that would prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021?

I mean, I am not going to hold my breath, but I am willing to bet that virtually every Republican, if not every Republican, will vote against this amendment.

Again, we get a lot of lectures about law and order from Republicans. Let's not forget, again, the leader of their party, the President of the United States, pardoned over 1,500 of his own supporters who violently attacked this building, including pardons for hundreds of convicted felons who violently and viciously beat law enforcement officers on January 6, sending many of them to the hospital with serious injuries.

Donald Trump pardoned every single one of them. Many are repeat offenders who are now back in our communities because of the radical, far-right policies of this President and because of the acquiescence and the silence of the party that controls this Chamber.

I mean, Matthew Huttle, a man with 12 prior criminal convictions, including a shocking case where he pled guilty to brutally hitting his 3-year-old son, leaving bruises all over his child's backside and neck, after he was pardoned by Donald Trump for the crimes he committed on January 6, went back to Indiana, where he was killed during a violent confrontation with law enforcement. He was a child abuser with a history of violence, who put law enforcement in danger again after he was pardoned by Donald Trump.

Theodore Middendorf, accused of sexually assaulting a 7-year-old child--this guy pled guilty to this horrific crime in 2024, and he was sentenced to 19 years in prison. That wasn't all. He also pled guilty to destroying government property and using an American flagpole as a weapon during the Capitol riot. He was pardoned by Donald Trump.

Peter Schwartz, a man with 30 prior criminal convictions, including abusing and assaulting his wife, biting her and repeatedly punching her, was convicted of attacking police officers on January 6 with pepper spray. He is another repeat offender pardoned by Donald Trump.

Andrew Taake was arrested in 2016 for soliciting a minor online for sex, but his criminal history didn't stop there. He assaulted police officers with bear spray and a metal whip on January 6. He is another repeat offender pardoned by Donald Trump.

Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are complicit in these crimes. I mean, thanks to these pardons, we have child sex predators and violent criminals back on our streets. We even have January 6 perpetrators who have been rearrested on new charges after being pardoned.

Daniel Ball, a convicted felon because of his involvement in the Capitol insurrection, was pardoned by Trump on January 20, only to be rearrested 2 days later on gun charges.

How dare you guys come down here and talk about law and order when you are complicit in these crimes? How dare you come down here and talk about supporting the police after you let out violent criminals who attacked law enforcement officers on January 6?

I mean, I get it. We have different opinions on a lot of issues, but the one thing that should unite us is our praise and our respect for those who defended not only all of us who were here on January 6 but also defended our democracy.

Because the guy in the White House doesn't want anybody to acknowledge that that was a terrible day, everybody just caved. Everybody caves on the other side.

I don't have any mixed feelings about what Trump did. I think it was outrageous. I think most Americans that I talk to, and I think most Americans across this country, don't have mixed feelings. They think what happened that day was outrageous. These guys should not have been pardoned. Some of them should still be in jail.

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

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

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me apologize to the TV station that I called a newspaper. What a terrible sin. I appreciate the gentleman's clarity in reading that I have mixed feelings because some of the people deserve some of the time. Boy, that is really a strongly worded condemnation.

I want to disagree with the gentleman on one thing he said, and that is somehow this is not on the agenda today. The gentleman just read off what the Republican agenda was and the votes that the Republicans want us to consider on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question.

Our staff handed my friend's team the amendment that we want to vote on. The next vote that we have, by the way, will be on whether we would prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. I guess that is the next vote. So people are going to have to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on that, and it is in front of us.

I don't really understand why the gentleman would say that it is not in front of us. If he wants to support what we are trying to do here and make sure that the people who viciously attacked Capitol Police officers on that day on January 6 that threatened the lives of those who work here and who destroyed all of this property, that is well- documented, all of this is on video, I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he would like to endorse what we are trying to do so maybe we can agree on something.

Okay, well, I guess I am not going to get that support.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the next vote, again, I remind people, will be on whether or not we want to prohibit the use of Federal funds to compensate individuals who were prosecuted for their involvement in the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The President is hinting that maybe he would be favorable to compensating some of these people who are responsible for the terrible crimes on that day. I find that sickening, quite frankly. He wants to give money to criminals, the people who attacked our democracy, who beat up our police officers, and yet he doesn't want to give money to our police officers, as I pointed out in the beginning. There is not a penny contained in any of these bills that actually help support our local police officers.

Let me also bring us back to what I think this debate is all about. It is about priorities. This is another wasted week, and the debate is really about what Republicans are not doing and what they refuse to do. It is about their wasted time in the majority and their total failure to bring up legislation to help everyday people.

People are begging us. They are begging us to do something about inflation. They are pleading with us to bring grocery prices down, to lower gas prices, to make life more affordable, and to stop the war and reverse the tariffs that are eating into their paychecks and killing their finances.

What do Republicans prioritize week after week after week after week?

It is billionaire tax breaks, loopholes for the rich and powerful, giveaways to the giant corporations, the price gougers, and the big donors who line their pockets with campaign cash.

Listen to me, America: These guys promised to lower your prices on day one. It is year two for God's sake, and who are you going to believe, them or your empty wallet?

Republicans have done nothing--nothing--to lower your costs. Their agenda does nothing to help everyday people. Their bills do nothing for working families. Their leader said so on TV yesterday.

He doesn't even think about how his reckless, illegal, vanity war hurts your pocketbook. He thinks about his arch. He thinks about painting the reflecting pool. He thinks about his golf course on the Potomac River. He thinks about bailouts for foreign governments and corrupt, shady deals that enrich his inner circle.

He thinks about his ballroom. Boy, does he bring that up every day. He wants $1 billion of your money for his tacky ballroom.

However, when it comes to helping you, when it comes to helping your family, when it comes to the medical bills piling up on your kitchen table, and when it comes to figuring out how to keep your fridge full until your next paycheck, he told us the answer himself: He doesn't care, not even a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

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.