Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 405 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), 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.

Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule providing for consideration of three pieces of legislation--H.R. 2240, H.R. 2243, and H.R. 2255--which will all be considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees. Additionally, the rule provides each with a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are here in Washington this week to continue to work on behalf of the American people. This is, in fact, Police Week, but we have been busy this year, this Congress delivering for the American people.

In this Congress so far, we have passed legislation to secure our elections, H.R. 222, the SAVE Act; hold rogue activist judges accountable, H.R. 1526; bring transparency to institutes of higher education, H.R. 1048; make changes to our border with the Laken Riley Act and the HALT Fentanyl Act; and to repeal the Biden-era harmful environmental regulations by passing what we call Congressional Review Acts to undo the damage of the Biden administration.

As Republicans continue to work on behalf of the American people and finalize the reconciliation products we are working on currently, we are also here to recognize National Police Week and the thousands of law enforcement officers who wake up every day to step on that thin blue line to defend and protect us.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation which designated May 15 as Peace Officer Memorial Day, and the week in which that date falls as Police Week.

Yesterday, my staff and I got the opportunity to welcome police officers from New Braunfels, Texas, and hear about the challenges they face every day. I talk to the men and women in blue virtually every day in the district that I represent, as I know many of my colleagues do.

My grandfather was the chief of police of a small west Texas town called Sweetwater. I was blessed to work in the United States Attorney's office and the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas, working every day with law enforcement. What they do matters for the peace and security of our country. Our Republic depends on having security on our streets.

There are thousands of stories that I can share about the daily heroism of law enforcement officers across the country, hundreds I could share even in the district I represent.

On February 16, 2024, Austin Police Department officers Dalton Schroeder and Jason Wright responded to 4-year-old William Martinez Romero, who was choking. The officers quickly jumped into action. Body cam footage shows Officer Schroeder run to his cruiser to grab an antichoking device he bought with his own money to be prepared for situations just like this, while Officer Wright started supporting William with back blows. They saved his life that day.

We must also remember that Police Week honors fallen peace officers, including one officer who died in the line of duty, Austin Police Department Senior Officer Jorge Pastore died in action November 11, 2023, responding to a domestic violence call in South Austin. Hostages were held inside a home, and when officers attempted to enter, gunfire started to go off. The SWAT team was called in to help distract the suspect, one being Officer Pastore, who was trying to rescue the victims.

I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say we couldn't be more excited to welcome tens of thousands of law enforcement officers from around the country to D.C. this week.

Let's be clear: House Republicans and President Trump are mobilized to restore order and sanity in the United States, something that had been lacking for years.

I remember the days, as I know my colleagues do, in 2020 when there were fires and destruction rampant across the country, as our cities were being burned to the ground and law enforcement was being targeted. It was unacceptable.

There are Members of this body, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who were encouraging it. They were undermining our law enforcement officers, making it more difficult for them to carry out their jobs, who were challenging them. It was important that we stood by them, and it is important now that the President and Republicans are standing by our law enforcement officers.

Americans suffered due to the amplification of that extreme rhetoric against law enforcement. The homicide rates stayed significantly higher through 2022 after massively skyrocketing in the wake of 2020.

The rule before us today is another step in helping law enforcement officers across the Nation which, after 4 years of a Biden-run Department of Justice targeting police departments, should be a welcome relief to our men and women in blue.

This week we will consider three pieces of legislation to support our brothers and sisters in law enforcement. H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025, which would allow Federal law enforcement officers the opportunity to purchase the service weapons they used before obtaining a new one; H.R. 2243, the LEOSA Reform Act, which amends the Gun-Free School Zones Act to provide an exemption for law enforcement officers certified under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act to carry a concealed firearm in a gun- free school zone; and H.R. 2240, Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, which would require the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress that includes data on attacks on law enforcement.

These bills are widely supported by law enforcement groups. The Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs of America, National Association of Police Organizations, National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, and Sergeants Benevolent Association of the NYPD sent a letter on March 25, 2025, to the House Judiciary Committee urging support of these bills and advancement to the House floor.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so concerned about crime in the country that the parting shot of Joe Biden on January 19 was to commute the sentences of 2,500 Federal defendants he claimed were ``convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.''

Let's look at that. We have a situation where he reduced the sentence of a Buffalo man, Lairon Graham, 67. In 2023, he was convicted of organizing and heading a drug conspiracy to sell fentanyl, crack cocaine, and heroin. When police raided his home, they found fentanyl, crack, and cash. He also possessed a firearm. In addition to heading up the drug gang, Graham was also convicted of sex trafficking by force or coercion from 2013 to 2021.

Of course, this is on top of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanting to defend a Maryland man for being sent overseas after the guy was clearly moving people illegally, beating his girlfriend and wife, violating our laws, and here illegally. That is who they want to defend.

There are numerous other examples. Jaron Ruth, another Buffalo native, pleaded guilty in 2019 to selling drugs over a period of 3 years and possessing firearms. He had been charged with shooting a man in the chest during a burglary of the victim's home.

These are the kind of folks that Joe Biden was commuting as he exited stage left. We had another situation where he commuted the sentence of a gentleman who left prison after Biden commuted his sentence in the killing of two FBI agents. Is that who my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think they ought to be defending?

Can they answer the question of commuting the sentences of these violent criminals and putting them out on the streets, just as they voted against every measure we put forward to defend our borders and to stop the death and destruction of American citizens like Laken Riley or like Jocelyn Nungaray or those who have died at the hands of dangerous criminal cartels and gangs in our country?

What President Trump is doing is restoring the rule of law. What Republicans are doing is standing up in defense of law enforcement because we stand up in defense of the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).

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

What I would notice, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman complained about not having the amendment considered, but he offered the amendment about 1 hour before the Rules Committee met. So spare me the concern about whether or not we are considering amendments when we don't have the time to look at the amendment.

I would also note that when we are talking about these kinds of people, I went through a list of folks whom President Biden had commuted.

Here is another one. A Lubbock man, granted clemency by Biden, was arrested. The sheriff was absolutely angry about the former administration's decisions. The sheriff said that he felt angry after he found out a convicted criminal was being released back on the Lubbock streets early, that a convicted criminal is now back in law enforcement custody after violating his supervised release.

These are the kinds of folks whom we are putting back out on the streets, and we are having to arrest again the very people that President Biden put back out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McGuire).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that as we are considering this Police Week and we are talking about the safety and security of our streets, I would just note that two of our most dangerous States as measured by violent crime and property crime rates are the States of New Mexico and Colorado, which also happen to have Democrats controlling all levels of power.

I would note that last summer, the good people of Aurora, Colorado, were dealing with Tren de Aragua, who were engaging in violent activities in apartment complexes and demonstrating the violence that has led to the death of Americans, and the trafficking of dangerous narcotics and fentanyl. They literally took over their homes. I met with and talked to Cindy Romero from Aurora about what happened to her in her home and that my Democratic colleagues weren't even acknowledging that it was happening. They were just ignoring it.

Then Tren de Aragua moved to San Antonio and other places across the country. I want to give a shout-out to the Texas Department of Public Safety and all the great local law enforcement in Hays County, Texas. That is because just literally last week they converged together with the FBI to go identify and stop 47 individuals. Probably 14 of whom were a part of Tren de Aragua from all over the country. They had come into Austin to coordinate. They had drugs, narcotics, and children in a home near where I live in Dripping Springs, Texas.

Thanks to law enforcement we now have removed at least four of those individuals and are prosecuting others because we now have a law enforcement community who knows that the President of the United States is backing them, and a Republican House and a Republican Senate are backing them.

Local law enforcement are being backed instead of having leftist judges who are dismissing the crimes and putting dangerous criminals on the streets. When Joe Biden commutes sentences and puts dangerous criminals on the streets, the American people know who is actually standing up for law enforcement.

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

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

If we talk about standing up in defense of police, how can my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say with a straight face that that is what they want to do when we had one Democrat from New York who said: I am not in favor of more police; I am actually in favor of defunding the police. We had another Congresswoman from New York who said: Defunding police means defunding police. I can go back, and the Record is replete with examples of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle calling for defunding the police. In fact, one of my colleagues from Texas was literally serving on the Austin City Council when they cut $150 million out of the Austin Police Department's budget, leaving their academy decimated, leaving them unable to field 911 calls, leaving violent crimes skyrocketing in the city of Austin, because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were patently clear about their desire to defund the police and

side with violent mobs in the summer of 2020, when our cities were burning across the country.

Yes, we are standing up for the men and women in blue. Yes, we will defend them, but, no, we are not going to blindly support grants that are being used by NGOs to undermine the very police they are saying they are trying to support. For example, one grant to an NGO that was promoting prostitution and open borders, this is the kind of stuff that the American people sent us here to stop. This is the kind of stuff that they are proud of the President for using DOGE to identify and stop.

Yes, we are trying to defund those particularly bad grant programs, while we try to make sure that our local jurisdictions can fund police properly and have judges that will actually put bad guys in jail instead of letting them on the streets and a President that won't commute the sentences of 2,500 people, dozens or hundreds of whom were violent criminals and are now back out on the streets.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of my Republican colleagues for bringing forward legislation in support of our law enforcement community.

I am proud of the fact that, in fact, this President is trying to focus resources where it will best provide security and safety on our streets and back our law enforcement community to actually target criminals, not fund ridiculous grants, not fund NGOs that are undermining our security, the very NGOs that are perpetuating the open borders; that are putting gangs in our communities, like TDA and MS-13, that lead directly to the death of Americans, death of Americans like Jocelyn Nungaray, like Laken Riley, like Rachel Morin, like Kayla Hamilton; Americans that are no longer with us because of the policies of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because of wide-open borders, and because of tolerance of violent criminals, because of a Democrat President who has let violent criminals out on the street and commuted their sentences; because of radical leftist judges promoted by those that fund my colleagues on the other side of the aisle; like George Soros who have funded DAs that are letting criminals out on the streets in cities like San Antonio and Austin that I represent; like my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that have defunded the police time and time again and have defended that position.

For example, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that the defund the police movement is one of reimagining the current police system to build an entity that does not violate us, while relocating funds to invest in community services.

Another colleague said that the defund movement isn't new. Folks are just finally listening.

Defund the police, said a Democrat colleague.

Defunding the police isn't radical. It is real, said a former Democrat colleague and, as I said before, a colleague that literally voted on the Austin City Council to strip $150 million out of the police budget, leaving the Austin Police stranded, unable to do their job and the people of Austin unable to get the services that they deserve and pay taxes for, while their streets are made more violent and while criminals are allowed to roam free under the very aforementioned Soros DAs that refused to prosecute the criminals.

Everybody in America knows what is going on. Everybody in America gets the joke. They saw their cities burning in the summer of 2020. They saw the reality of what happens when you allow these radical Democratic policies to take root, and they want it to end.

They want common sense back. They want a President who will enforce the law and an FBI that will target criminals instead of the American people. They don't want to have a Federal Government that is weaponized against them. They don't want them to be targeted.

They want violent criminals off the streets. They want violent gangs off the streets. They want our borders to be secure. They want TDA out. They want MS-13 out. They want fentanyl off their streets.

The only way you can do that is to actually back up the people trying to enforce the law and actually stand with them in the enforcement of the law, not turn around and let all the criminals back out on the streets. Yet, that is what my colleagues perpetually want to do.

The fact of the matter is, the American people understand that this President, this Republican House, this Republican Senate, and Republican jurisdictions across the country stand for law enforcement. They stand for order. That is what they want. That is what they sent us here for.

We put together some bills this week that are focused on wishes of the people, the men and women in blue, like my grandfather, who served as chief of police in Sweetwater, Texas, and the many law enforcement I was proud to serve with and alongside in the Office of the Attorney General of Texas and in the United States Attorney's Office. We work with them on a regular basis.

When you talk to them, they cannot do their jobs if the radical leftist policies of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are allowed to continue to be perpetuated. You can't combat crime if you put the criminals back on the streets. You can't combat crime if you import criminals from dangerous prisons. You can't combat crime if your law enforcement agencies are targeting American citizens for political retribution rather than taking dangerous, violent criminals off the streets.

I rise in support of these bills. I rise in support of the rule. The legislation that we put forward will provide the value for our men and women in uniform that they have asked for. They have asked for the ability to keep the weapons that they had in service.

Why does that matter? I will tell you why it matters. My grandfather that I mentioned before died in 1949 of cancer. When my dad, a 7-year- old, had polio and my grandmother was a single mom in west Texas raising him and did all the tough things, didn't ask for any handouts, took two jobs, helped my dad go on to be the first to go to college--my dad is 82 years old. He is still alive. He is 82 and still manages to walk, barely.

My dad talks about his dad as a cop, and he pulls out his old .38, the .38 revolver that my grandfather had in service. That means something to the people who serve. It means something for them to be able to carry that with them and take it with them. It is no small thing.

Some of my colleagues dismiss it as not being important. I can tell you it is important to the people who are out there serving because they devote their lives to this cause.

When I take that .38 out of the safe and show it to my son, he is holding the .38 that his great-grandfather held and carried with him when he was policing the streets. I think that is a good thing.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 405 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 33) directing the

Architect of the Capitol to install at a permanent location

on the western front of the United States Capitol an

honorific plaque listing the names of all of the officers of

the United States Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police

Department of the District of Columbia, and other Federal,

State, and local law enforcement agencies and protective

entities who responded to the violence that occurred at the

United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. All points of order

against consideration of the concurrent resolution are

waived. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as

read. All points of order against provisions in the

concurrent resolution are waived. The previous question shall

be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to

adoption without intervening motion except one hour of debate

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking

minority member of the Committee on House Administration or

their respective designees.

Sec 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H. Con. Res. 33.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today, as every day, I stand in honor of our police and our law enforcement. I often say to those who serve that to serve is an act of love. I recognize the love of those who step up to put their lives on the line and to put their lives in a place of danger to protect us. I honor that service and that love.

Today, like last night, I heard an outrageous lie about which party supports law enforcement. Let's look at

the facts. Republican President Donald Trump's proposed budget will slash funding for the ATF and Drug Enforcement Administration, fire FBI employees, wipe out community policing grants, and gut civil rights enforcement.

Trump's budget doesn't support local law enforcement. It hurts them.

In my rural district, local law enforcement actually needs more support. I am outraged when Republicans say Federal help is duplicative, which is what they said last night in the Rules Committee.

I have spoken with the police officers and sheriffs who traverse thousands of miles of bumpy rural roads in my district. Rio Arriba County, for example, is bigger than the State of Connecticut, yet it has fewer than two dozen police officers.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what helps a small, rural police department like Rio Arriba? Do you know what the sheriffs need? They need support from the FBI and Federal law enforcement. FBI comes in and helps them solve crimes.

Tribal law enforcement also relies on the FBI. Tribal leaders frequently describe the long wait times for police to arrive and the countless criminal investigations left unsolved because there aren't enough FBI agents.

Mr. Speaker, when you cut funding for the FBI, as Republican President Trump proposes in his budget, you are not cutting duplicative funding. You are cutting essential investigative services. It is a guarantee that crimes will go unsolved.

The partnership between law enforcement agencies at all levels is critical to keep our communities safe. From the sheriff in Rio Arriba to the Capitol Police officers right outside these doors, each plays an important role. Unfortunately, not everybody respects all of our law enforcement officers.

In this very building, January 6 insurrectionists brutally attacked the Capitol Police and law enforcement officers from multiple jurisdictions. More than 140 police suffered injuries and went to the hospital. Five officers died. Then, President Trump pardoned the violent thugs who battered those police officers. It is a shame.

Every day, we walk by our dedicated Capitol Police, yet very few Republicans have the courage to condemn the pardons of the violent thugs who beat the police. Last night during Rules, we couldn't even get a Republican who is a former prosecutor to condemn the pardons-- more shame. If Republicans truly backed the blue, they would all denounce those pardons.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Texas condemned those pardons. Is he willing to do so now?

Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to what Americans are focused on right now and what the thousands of callers to congressional offices, Republican and Democratic, are worried about. It is Republican cuts to Medicaid.

This is a big week for Republicans. As reported in Punchbowl, it is their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cut Medicaid.

This week in the dead of night while America was sleeping, Republican committees took a sledgehammer to lifesaving programs like Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what is happening. Democrats fought all night to save 8.6 million Americans from losing access to Medicaid. That doesn't include the 4.2 million Americans who will start paying a whole lot more for their healthcare premiums so big corporations can get their tax deductions.

Republicans voted down every single amendment that Democrats offered to protect Medicaid. Let me remind everybody that in more than 25 districts, more than a third of the constituents rely on Medicaid. That includes Republican Nick Begich's and Robert Bresnahan's districts. Not a single Republican had the courage to stand up for their constituents.

The people are showing up in our offices to demand that Republicans listen to them. Some are protesting in their wheelchairs.

Yesterday, I spoke to a disabled woman named Julie outside the committee markup. Thirty-five years ago, Julie crawled up the House steps to demand that Congress pass the Americans with Disabilities Act. She is now back to beg for the bare minimum. She told me that she doesn't trust Republicans to protect her healthcare. Based on their votes, she is right.

Congress listened to her plea 35 years ago. Now, the wealthy interests and Trump's pressure are just too much. Republicans won't listen to a word from Julie or the 80 disabled advocates who came with her. She and other advocates are asking them to protect Medicaid and to protect the services they need. Even though they are in wheelchairs, they are not voiceless and will show up with their power. If that doesn't break our hearts, I don't know what will.

We have a broken system that prioritizes the wealthy, corruption, and loyalty to President Trump over the health and well-being of people like Julie. There are 8.6 million people who will suffer because Republicans took their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cut Medicaid.

Republicans may be gleeful, but Americans will be tearful. Remember, congressional Republicans will lie over and over and say this is about rooting out fraud. No, it is not. It is about giving permanent tax cuts to the oligarchs. In fact, the top 20 percent of income earners will get 68 percent of the benefits in their bill.

Make no mistake that people will die as a result of these cuts. Families will suffer. Many will go broke thanks to medical bills, while millionaires get money for more yachts. Do they really need any more yachts?

Mr. Speaker, getting back to law enforcement, do you know the other things that sheriffs in my district need to respond to crime and to keep people alive? They need rural hospitals. When Republicans strip $715 billion from Medicaid, no matter how they try to paint that pig, they will be eliminating rural hospitals and emergency rooms.

When they do that, police officers in rural areas in places like Chama, New Mexico, in my district will have to drive 1\1/2\ to 2 hours to the nearest emergency room. Ask any first responder: The quicker somebody gets to an emergency room, the more likely they are to survive. When life or death is a matter of minutes, what Republicans are doing this week is deadly.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really wondering what kind of people they want to defend over there. Let's talk about those pardons. Let's talk about the fact that this isn't something that happened over there. This happened in this Capitol. Those violent offenders were violent before they got there.

Let me talk about a couple of them. Do my colleagues want to defend Steven Cappuccio? He was convicted of six felonies, including assaulting a police officer.

Mr. Speaker, he was together with David Dempsey. David Dempsey was sentenced to 20 years. He stomped on a police officer's head, and he struck an officer in the head with a metal crutch.

This is the kind of person the Republicans want to defend.

Enrique Tarrio, a former national leader of the Proud Boys and a domestic terrorist, was pardoned by Donald Trump.

Guy Reffitt, somebody who brought a gun, zip ties, and body armor, was pardoned by Donald Trump.

Not only that, they have gone after their pardons, and they haven't stopped the criminal spree.

A Houston man was pardoned by Trump and then arrested on sex charges.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled: ``Houston man pardoned by Trump arrested on child sex charge.''

This happens over and over again. They seem unwilling to stand up for the Capitol Police whom they walk by every day.

They refuse to put up the plaque that is, by law, honoring them.

I wonder if they ever even say: I am sorry. I am sorry that President Trump pardoned the people who beat you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H. Con. Res. 33.

This measure will ensure that the plaque honoring the brave police officers who defended us on January 6 is hung in the Capitol as required by law.

Mr. Speaker, you know it is Police Week, but Republicans for some reason refuse to put up the plaque honoring the heroic efforts by U.S. Capitol Police and other local and Federal law officers who defended us and our democracy on January 6.

It is not a scary thing. The plaque looks like this.

Don't you agree, Mr. Speaker?

It is lovely. It recognizes their heroic efforts, and it is the law. It was signed into law by the President that this plaque goes up.

What are they afraid of?

Why don't they want to honor the Capitol Police and other law enforcement officers who were beaten and battered?

Why is their support for police conditional?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), to speak more to this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it incredibly ironic when my colleague talks about President Trump backing law enforcement.

Last night in the Rules Committee, their Republican colleague, Mr. Knott, noted that Republicans have not increased or passed legislation for law enforcement in the 119th Congress.

When Republicans back law enforcement, they should actually be passing the funding to support State law enforcement, to support that collaboration and coordination. At the same time we are seeing that Republicans are not saying a peep about the fact that President Trump is cutting existing resources.

Not only does he plan to cut the budget for law enforcement, he is cutting resources today. He has terminated $820 million worth of grants for public safety. He has cut $169 million in funding for community safety and violence reduction programs. He has cut $71.7 million in grants to policing and prosecution programs, including longstanding efforts to address violent crimes and acts of targeted violence.

It doesn't terminate there. The Trump administration terminated grants for policing and prosecution, for victim services, for juvenile justice and child protection, for substance abuse and mental health treatment, for correction, and for protecting and serving the women who have been raped and the children who have been abused. He has cut that funding.

I have spoken to the women who are administering those programs and who have called me in tears because the children they serve will not be receiving those Federal grants.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to this issue of the pardons that my colleague has referred to.

Once again, let's go back and think about how they have not objected to the pardons of the January 6, nor have they called for putting up the plaque to honor the law enforcement who served us that day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat), the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, a vote on the previous question is a vote to protect the police.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has mentioned all kinds of words and ideas, and he is putting all kinds of stuff out there, but he has not once mentioned the plaque.

The previous question is: Will you honor the police who defended us in this Chamber by doing a simple thing? That is putting up this plaque.

Mr. Speaker, what counts on the floor of this House is your vote. Let's look at what those votes have resulted in. Those votes say we should honor the police who suffered when the insurrectionists beat them, that we should honor the police who protected our democracy and indeed protected every single one of us. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, a House Member or a Senator, you were protected by the police.

Are you willing to vote for this? If you vote against the previous question, you are saying we will not do this simple act of respect.

Now, let's get to the idea of what did you actually vote on.

Democrats have the receipts. For fiscal year 2023, the last year that Democrats wrote the appropriations bill, we increased funding for grants to State and local law enforcement by $506 billion. All but nine House Republicans voted against that bill.

Remember, it is not what you say. It is what you do. What did you vote for? Democrats put forward bills to increase funding, and Republicans voted against it.

We also increased funding for the FBI by half a billion dollars. I already went through how important the FBI is for Tribal law enforcement; how much our rural and local officers rely on them to do the investigation. They have access to technology that our sheriffs do not. The FBI supports law enforcement in Indian country.

We need these resources, and I am incredibly insulted when the gentleman, my good friend from Texas, my neighbor, actually says of local law enforcement that these programs are a waste. Go and talk to the people who rely on them. They are not duplicative. They are not a waste. They are essential.

Let me do just one last little fact check on that. When you look at who has the most homicides and some of the highest crime rates, it is indeed Republican States. Yes, it is unfortunate, and it is something we need to work on. Democrats raise this issue all the time, but the highest levels of crime and homicides are--let me go through those States--Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, sadly, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, South Carolina. See a little trend there? It is actually Republicans. Don't come and talk to us about that. It is dangerous to live and work in many Republican-led States.

Let's get back to what we do to honor and respect law enforcement on this Police Week.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We have heard a lot of claims today, but here is what remains true. Democrats support law enforcement, not just with words, but with action, with our votes. We back them with funding, with resources, and, importantly, with respect.

That is why, under Democratic leadership, we increased funding for local and Federal law enforcement, including the very FBI that solves crimes in our rural and Tribal communities.

We don't just say these things. We show up for law enforcement. We stand with the Capitol Police who defended our democracy and our lives on January 6. We honor their courage. We mourn those who died, and we refuse to excuse the violent criminals who attacked them.

Unfortunately, too many of our Republican colleagues have chosen loyalty to Donald Trump over loyalty to the truth and over loyalty to the officers who keep us safe. You cannot say you support and respect law enforcement and stay silent as Trump pardons the violent criminals who battered the police on January 6. You can't say you support law enforcement when you refuse to do something as simple as hanging a plaque to honor their sacrifices.

While Republicans hold up empty slogans, Democrats fight for the health and dignity of the American people. We fought all night long to protect 8.6 million Americans from losing Medicaid, for the mother caring for a child with disabilities. We fought to protect the senior in rural New Mexico who has to drive hours just to see a doctor and will have to drive hours more when their Medicaid cuts destroy our world healthcare system. Why? So Republicans can hand out tax cuts to billionaires.

Do the millionaires and billionaires you are protecting really need more? They already have so much. They will drown and bury the veteran, the pregnant mother, the disabled worker with paperwork while they will just give away a bigger tax cut to the wealthiest among us. That just doesn't seem fair.

Mr. Speaker, I say that this is about values. This is about who do you value and what will you do when it actually comes down to vote?

Democrats value and choose to protect people like Julie, who crawled up these Capitol steps 35 years ago to demand dignity and now returns to beg us not to be forgotten. We are not forgetting her, and Democrats will not stop fighting for her and for millions more.

Mr. Speaker, 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, I rise in support of the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act.

Law enforcement officers serve as our lifeline of defense against danger. With this bill, we have an opportunity to equip the Department of Justice and Congress with very crucial information to better understand and enhance officer safety.

Law enforcement officers deserve to return home safely to their families, knowing their well-being is truly a priority. Federal, State, local, and Tribal officers face very long hours, immense pressure, and unpredictable dangers every day. Over time, the constant strain of the job can take a significant toll on their bodies and minds.

While there are some mental health resources currently available to our officers, there is still so much more that we can and should be doing to ensure their wellness and, most definitely, their safety.

By prioritizing data-driven approaches to officer safety and wellness, we can address systemic risks, reduce preventable tragedies, and build a stronger, more resilient law enforcement system.

The goal is that the required report will provide us with insight into the challenges our officers face and help us to understand the additional support that they need to remain physically and mentally safe.

Federal law enforcement officers dedicate themselves to protecting our Nation, to protecting our communities, and it is our responsibility in this body to ensure that they receive the protection that they deserve.

Law enforcement officers face unparalleled risks every day, from physical violence to psychological traumas. According to the FBI, assaults against officers remain very, very high, with tens of thousands of them who are injured annually.

Beyond the line of duty, officers experience higher rates of PTSD, depression, and suicide compared to the general population. Yet, for too long, this body, Congress, has not done as much as we should to tackle these issues that they face.

This bill requires the collection and analysis of critical data on attacks on officers, injuries that they suffer, their mental health challenges, and wellness program effectiveness. Without accurate data, we are fighting blind.

By identifying trends, such as the frequency of attacks on officers or gaps in mental health support, we can implement targeted solutions to keep our officers safe and to keep them healthy.

Many officer fatalities and injuries are preventable with better training, better equipment, and better policies. For example, if data reveals that a significant number of injuries occurred during traffic stops, agencies can adopt safer tactics or deploy new technologies. If certain regions report higher rates of firearm-related fatalities, we can prioritize resources there.

Officer suicide rates outpace line-of-duty deaths. I will say this again: Officer suicide rates outpace line-of-duty deaths. Yet, stigma and inadequate resources prevent many of them from seeking help. This bill will help us track mental health trends, evaluate the effectiveness of peer support programs, and expand access to counseling. Healthy officers are better officers. They are more effective officers, both for their own well-being and for the communities that they serve.

When officers are safer, healthier, and better supported, they are better equipped to serve with professionalism and with empathy. Our communities benefit when law enforcement agencies are operating using data to improve practices rather than reacting to crises.

Yet, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act isn't just about gathering data and reporting statistics. It is about lives, and it is about public safety. It is about the officer who returns home safely to their family at night. It is about the rookie who gets lifesaving training, or the veteran who receives mental health care instead of suffering in silence.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to realize any of these benefits, this bill must be the first step that we take and definitely not the last. We must be prepared to act on the information that we get from these reports that come from this bill, much of which is already collected by the DOJ and other agencies. We must be prepared to provide tangible resources to our law enforcement, which I am sure the reports will suggest that they need.

As we observe National Police Week and talk about officer safety and wellness, I would be remiss if I did not call for the immediate restoration of hundreds of millions of dollars that are affecting nearly 40 States in public safety grant funding that the Department of Justice chose to abruptly terminate. Some of that canceled funding went to law enforcement training; support and other critical resources; and, more specifically, to addressing the health, safety, and wellness of law enforcement.

As I have here, President Trump's 2026 budget would have devastating impacts on public policy by cutting $1 billion across 40 Department of Justice grant programs which support police departments and reduce violent crime, hate crime, and crime against women.

Mr. Speaker, $646 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, for violence and terrorism has been terminated. I can go on and on, but I won't.

These terminations include a grant totaled at over $8 million to the National Policing Institute, which assisted rural police departments and district attorneys' offices to pay for violent crime investigators and programs to combat child sex abuse.

I also feel that it is necessary to mention once again, as the ranking member has, the plaque that we voted to hang in the Capitol more than 3 years ago to honor the countless officers who fought--and they died--to protect the lives of Members of Congress, all of us in this body. They not only fought to protect Members of Congress but staffers and other personnel and to save our democracy on January 6, 2021.

Mr. Speaker, hanging this plaque is the least that we could do to honor those who have fought and died and given their lives for us, this body. Hanging this plaque is required by law, a law that was passed. We passed the law over 3 years ago.

Why is this plaque not up? That is a simple question. Why is this law being defied? That is a simple question.

Many of those officers have been left feeling ignored and betrayed by the very same Members of Congress. They stand outside every single day to protect and watch over us. They feel betrayed.

Many times, they can't even look at us as we walk out the door because they feel betrayed. They fought to protect us on that day, January 6, and, yes, we still betray them.

Former U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell recently told our staff: Trump is treating the rioters like they were the ones defending the Capitol.

He went on to say of Trump: Calling January 6 ``a day of love,'' if that was a day of love, ``They almost `loved' me to death.''

If we really intend to support our officers, they should not be feeling this level of betrayal and disappointment in the government that they swore to defend and protect. Officers who put their lives on the line for us deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I will take a point of privilege to say that when I lost my son, Jordan, in Jacksonville, Florida, on November 23, 2012, at a convenience store gas station by a man who never should have had a gun, that convenience store family, the owners, at least had the decency to put a plaque up in remembrance of my slain son, who was simply stopping to get some chewing gum as he was going from one mall to the next with his friends. They at least had the decency, and my son wasn't doing anything to protect the Nation or protect Members of Congress. Yet and still, out of dignity and respect for someone who was slain unnecessarily, they at least had the decency to put up a plaque in remembrance of my son.

We should no less do that for these folks who stand here every single day. They would take bullets for us. Let's do the right thing. Why would we not honor them? We can't say one thing and do another, that we want to serve and protect them. We want to make their lives better. The American people are watching us. They are depending on us.

Mr. Speaker, let's do the right thing. Simply just put this plaque out for all of us, for their service to us and to this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, while I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, I also urge them to do more than just collect data and request reports from other officials. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will just spend a little bit more time speaking. Not only are my colleagues apparently letting DOGE get away with terminating the Department of Justice grant programs, but they are also attempting to rob Federal law enforcement officers of their hard-earned retirement benefits.

I will put on the Record that, unlike other Federal employees, Federal law enforcement officers are eligible to retire voluntarily after serving our country for at least 20 years and reaching the age of 50 or after 25 years of service at any age.

Now, the Special Retirement Supplement for Federal officers provides roughly one-third of a Federal officer's retirement benefits, bridging the financial gap between when an officer chooses to retire and when they become eligible for Social Security at age 62.

This Special Retirement Supplement ensures financial stability for those who have dedicated their lives and their careers to protecting this country, but our Republican colleagues, their reconciliation bill, would limit the supplement only to those who reach the mandatory retirement age of 57 no matter how many years they have served.

It would also apply not just to new hires but to all officers, to those who clearly earned the ability to claim this benefit and didn't sign up for this new rule. The moment Trump signs the reconciliation bill into law, any officer that retires before reaching the age of 57 would lose one-third of their retirement benefits, making voluntary retirement untenable for every Federal law enforcement officer who is at or near retirement.

Cutting the supplement would have an immediate effect on the retention of overburdened, increasingly demoralized officers across the Federal Government, creating an overwhelming incentive for tens of thousands of eligible officers to retire before they plan to, before this change becomes law.

In closing, it is National Police Week, and we are honoring the brave men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every single day to protect our communities and this Nation.

I was proud to vote ``yes'' on this resolution on the House floor yesterday to express our Nation's gratitude to our law enforcement. I would also like to thank all the families for their courage and strength because families of law enforcement are part of this, too.

As ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, I hear directly from families and officers from all across the country about the reforms that they desperately need. I will continue to champion bills that provide tools that help our law enforcement officers and keep them all safe because they deserve that.

We stand with all of our officers around the country, whether they be Federal, State, or local, and we thank them for their service.

Though I really wish that we were doing so much more this week to make our officers safe or to invest in resources for their well-being, I will support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the very same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said earlier, while I do really support this legislation, I also call on my colleagues to stand with law enforcement by restoring these critical grants commemorating the bravery of our officers on January 6 and every day, protecting their pay, protecting their benefits, and all that the Federal officers have earned over the course of the time that they have served their communities and this country and ensuring that every Federal agency can continue to provide critical assistance to our State and local law enforcement.

We can do a lot better. They deserve so much better from us. Let's please work to do better.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McBath for her extraordinary leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, which seeks to improve law enforcement officer safety and wellness by requiring that the AG and other Federal officials issue regular reports on attacks on police officers, aggression against police officers, and on officer mental health.

I salute Mr. Fry, a freshman to this body, for his stewardship of this bill. The collection of this information is important and useful, but the mere passive gathering of data does little or nothing to actually improve officer effectiveness or public safety.

In fact, none of the bills we have considered from the majority during this law enforcement week would actually produce any measurable gains in public safety.

We spent the week voting for bills that will do nothing really but increase the number of weapons on our streets, our buses, our trains, our subways, parks, restaurants, and in our schools. That is a strange way to improve public safety or aid law enforcement in doing their jobs.

Now, there are things we can actually do to improve public safety.

Mr. Speaker, forgive me. I know Mr. Fry is in his second term, not in his first term. He is a valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, the last gentleman to speak said he never wanted to hear about defunding the police again, and I agree with him completely.

The problem is, he is about to hear about it because DOGE is defunding the police as we speak and, unfortunately, with your cooperation and your passivity, they are getting away with it.

Now, this self-anointed fourth branch of government, DOGE, which I think is getting run out of town right now because of its rank incompetence and lawless assaults on the privacy data of hundreds of millions of Americans and its unlawful summary mass firings of professional civil servants like air traffic controllers, food and drug inspectors, pediatric cancer researchers in my district, Forest Service, and firefighters. They are getting run out of town now. I don't hear a lot about Elon Musk. He has lost some elections for my friends across the aisle, so they are trying to let him sink into anonymity, but he has done his damage.

Over at the Department of Justice--and I have got to correct myself. I was saying that his employee, who I can identify now as Tarak Makecha, was responsible for slashing more than $500 million in public safety, local law enforcement, and victim assistance organizations across the country. Although that was technically correct, more than $500 million, it really understates the gravity of this offense against public safety. It was $811 million in grants that were terminated.

Now, understand what a grievous assault this is on our system of government. Congress passes budgets. They are initiated here in the House of Representatives. We voted to appropriate that money to the Department of Justice. The House voted for it. The Senate voted for it. It was signed into law by the President. The money went to the Department of Justice. It was programmed for those purposes. $811 million was awarded to each of those grantees and now we have got some reportage explaining what happened. It all came down to this one guy, Tarak Makecha, working for Elon Musk.

Did anybody elect him around here? Did anybody confirm him for any job? I don't think so.

He wrote some memos under the authority of dusk, which now I think is an invalidated, discredited authority if you read the opinion from the Federal District Court of Northern California on Friday night because they remember how the Constitution works.

We don't have a fourth branch of government called Elon Musk or Tarak Makecha. This guy wrote memos to the deputy attorney general demanding that all of these grants to law enforcement and public safety and victim assistance groups across the country in our districts be deleted. He wouldn't rest until they were deleted. They were deleted so he said he could report it to his superiors and to the White House.

Now, why aren't we using this valuable time not just to pass a mere reporting bill, which is fine, but how about an action bill?

How about a bill that restores hundreds of millions of dollars to actually promoting criminal law enforcement, public safety, aid to victims of rape and sexual assaults, organizations fighting child sexual abuse across the country? Why don't we do that?

Why don't we just pierce the fog of rhetoric a little bit and get down to something that is actually happening?

Then we can follow that up with what I think would be a significant symbolic statement, as Mrs. McBath urges us to do, let's put up the plaque to honor the officers who defended us against the rampage of January 6.

The gentleman from North Carolina, I think, tried to change the subject as if one mob rampage justifies another. I am against all mob violence. I am against all mob rampages. I don't feel like I have to speak out against one of them. If I can't speak out against the one that comes to our House, who will trust me to speak out against mob violence anywhere else? I denounce it wherever it takes place, under whatever guise, under any ideological auspice at all. I denounce mob violence.

I challenge my friend from North Carolina to find me one Democratic official who incited violent insurrection or incited mob violence on that day because I will tell you, this Chamber voted to impeach that President who incited mob violence against us in a sweeping bipartisan vote, Democrats and Republicans, together. Then the Senate voted 57-43.

The President, in his inimitable way, was able to beat the constitutional odds, but nonetheless, commanding majorities of both Chambers found that he incited violence against us in order to overthrow a Presidential election he had lost by more than 7 million votes.

Find me a Democratic Governor who pardoned any of the mobsters or the violent insurrectionists or people burning down buildings. Can you find me one? Can you find me any Democratic politician who wants to honor those people? Can you?

I can show you a United States President today who seems to think that it was the rioters and insurrectionists who deserve honor and praise.

Don't give me any false analogy or false comparison. We denounce violence everywhere.

Will our colleagues have the courage to ask for the plaque honoring the police officers who opposed the violence that came right into this Chamber? I can hear them chanting: ``Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike Pence.''

Remember him? He was the Republican Vice President of the United States, and they chased him out. Now, they would like his memory to go down that Orwellian black hole so nobody remembers him or so nobody remembers the things the Republicans said. They called it terrorism at the time, but now it is inconvenient.

Donald Trump doesn't want police officers being honored for the work they did defending our Constitution, our democracy, our Capitol, and the Members of Congress, including people who sit on that side of the aisle as well as the Members who sit on this side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman stirred me out of my stupor there by coming back with a couple of grants that apparently were eliminated. I will take his word for it. If I did the internal math correctly, that was less than $2 million out of $811 million cut in awards that were made by the Department of Justice to local law enforcement citizen community safety groups, and so on across the country.

Now, apparently there are certain grants that the gentleman doesn't want ever to go out. For example, I take it the gentleman doesn't think very highly of anything having to do with citizens who are transgender. We differ about that, apparently, because I think everybody has civil rights and everybody's voice needs to be heard.

In any event, that needs to be brought up in the Appropriations Committee where we can vote on it democratically. That should not be up to one of Elon Musk's midnight riders, a computer hacker who comes in and simply decides to wipe out all of the handiwork of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate signed into law by the President and then awarded by the Department of Justice.

We do not have a fourth branch of government here, which is what the Federal District Court, Northern California, was saying on Friday.

Are my colleagues aware that there have been more than 250 cases brought against the reign of lawlessness and authoritarianism brought down on America in the first 5 months of the Trump administration? There are 156 preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders right now.

A couple of hours ago, the Supreme Court heard the case about Donald Trump in an executive order trying to destroy birthright citizenship in America. Every sixth grader in America knows that if you are born in America, you are a citizen of the United States. They tried to reverse that. That got struck down by four courts.

They call them radical left rogue judges. Well, two of the ones who struck it down were Democratic appointees, one by President Obama and one by President Biden. The other two were Republican appointees, one appointed by President Bush and one appointed by President Reagan, who said that in his four decades on the bench he had never seen a more unconstitutional law than that one. He had never seen an easier case than that one.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand what is wrong with that. You just have to know how to read. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . . `'

These people are finger painting all over the Constitution. They are usurping the rule of law as adopted by the Congress of the United States. They are creating new branches of government. I am glad that they finally ran Elon Musk out of town because he was no longer politically useful to him, but in the meantime we have to deal with the wreckage.

If he, by accident, did something the gentleman agrees with, bully for him, great, but in the meantime, he has undone the will of Congress. He has nullified and canceled hundreds of millions of dollars going out to public safety and criminal law enforcement across America.

Let's get back to the rule of law. Let's get back to law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2240, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, a bill that I introduced in response to the deeply troubling rise in targeted violence against our Nation's law enforcement.

Every day, officers across this great Nation put their lives on the line to keep our communities safe. Far too often, they, in fact, become the targets of violence simply for wearing the badge. This year alone-- this year alone, again--we are only in May--there have been 109 officers shot in the line of duty, 12 of whom tragically lost their lives.

Mr. Speaker, even more alarming is there have been 21 ambush-style attacks on law enforcement officers this year, resulting in 25 officers shot, 5 of whom were killed. These numbers do not account, though, even for the many instances where officers were fired upon but, fortunately, were not struck.

Mr. Speaker, ambush-style attacks are some of the most dangerous. They are calculated and often deadly, leading to higher rates of both injuries and fatalities. That is why I introduced this legislation to ensure that we are doing all that we can at the Federal level to understand, prevent, and respond to these targeted attacks.

The Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act enhances our ability to collect and, more importantly, to analyze data on violent acts against officers. This will empower agencies around the country with the information that they need to strengthen their responses and better protect their personnel.

Importantly, H.R. 2240 also calls for a comprehensive assessment of availability and use of mental health resources within law enforcement because protecting those who protect us must include supporting their mental well-being. We need to make sure that we get away from any shame that can sometimes happen when a law enforcement officer needs to reach out for some kind of mental health counseling.

If the Speaker would think about it, these men and women oftentimes see the worst of folks. They see folks who are in their worst state. They see the tragedies that hopefully most of us will go through life and never have to see, and they do it every day, day in and day out, because it is their job that they have chosen to do to keep us safe.

Mr. Speaker, these officers answer the call, day or night. They don't have a choice as to what they respond to. They run toward danger to safeguard our neighborhoods, and far too often, they pay a heavy price. We owe them more than our gratitude. We owe them action.

Mr. Speaker, I say this: There were a couple of comments about past events, some which happened before I came here as a new Member. Yet, I do remember very well the spring of 2020, when we saw many of our cities burned, looted, and destroyed. Some of them have not yet even recovered. Instead of law enforcement being supported by some in those local governments, they were vilified when they were out doing what they could to try to help. They were told to stand down and allow mobs to go in and destroy property.

I saw that firsthand, Mr. Speaker, in Raleigh. I literally watched folks roaming around and destroying windows, burning vehicles, shooting, all this kind of mayhem. I won't mention names, but I saw some colleagues on the other side who would kind of give cover and say: Well, it was understandable. It was a peaceful protest.

It is not a peaceful protest if you are destroying buildings. It is not a peaceful protest if you are attacking someone. It is not a peaceful protest if you are burning buildings, burning cars, and engaging in violent conduct.

Then we saw from that some of this antipolice that came about, the calls to defund the police. I am glad to see that I don't hear that very much anymore. I hope that foolish idea never gets raised again in this great Chamber because if it were not for the men and women in law enforcement, it would be a society of disorder and random violence. We owe these men and women all that we can do for them. We owe it to them to make sure that their jobs are safe.

Mr. Speaker, I think about a situation that happened in Wake County, North Carolina, in 2022, where a sheriff's deputy was ambushed and killed by an illegal immigrant. I am not trying to open up the debate on illegal immigration. Fortunately, this body has taken action, along with our President, to secure the border and to stop gang members from coming into this country.

Yet, someone who was in this country who shouldn't have even been here attacked and ambushed a Wake County deputy and killed him. These stories happen around the country.

This is one more piece--one more piece--in finally bringing some sanity, bringing some protection and providing protection for the American people, to make sure that they are not having to worry about gang members being allowed into the country, that we are not allowing illegal immigration to run amuck, and that we are not downing the police and somehow lifting up the criminals.

The American people were tired of that. They were tired of it. And guess what? They are getting results. This is one more piece to try to do this to help these men and women in law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the body's support. I encourage all of the Members to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no shortage of us who are attorneys or at least former attorneys on this floor. One of the things, of course, is when we hear information, we want to run it down and sometimes correct the record.

My good friend from Maryland pointed out about some sort of cuts from DOGE that would affect law enforcement, so I immediately wanted to look and see what he possibly could be talking about. I think what the gentleman was talking about were a couple things.

One was getting rid of a $250,000 grant, funding for jailed trans inmates working with incarcerated transgender individuals providing gender-affirming care to include housing in gender-appropriate facilities. Actually, I think that is a pretty good thing to get rid of so we can put more resources in to helping law enforcement.

Next is $2 million for some sort of national listening session for, as I understand it, criminal defendants.

Then we have $695,000 for a parallel convergent mixed-methods case study. I don't even know what that means, a parallel convergent mixed- methods case study research designed to assess the efficacy of police departments' LGBTQ liaison services.

I think one of the things with this reconciliation bill and with the actions of President Trump is to get rid of the waste and to put the resources to helping our men and women in law enforcement.

During National Police Week, as we are honoring police, while we have a few differences of opinion and may disagree on a few other matters, I am at least comforted by the fact of knowing that we all, on both sides of the aisle, do support law enforcement.