Condemning the violent antisemitic attack in Boulder, Colorado, and expressing support for the survivors and their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 331, the HALT Fentanyl Act. The House approved this bill in February, and since that time, the Trump administration has set its sights on dismantling our Nation's public health infrastructure, including the agency directly responsible for addressing mental health and substance abuse disorders.

Republicans are going to claim today that they are addressing the opioid overdose crisis with this bill, but this is nothing but a distraction from the fact that Republicans continue to silently stand by and allow the Trump administration to gut our public health agencies.

Republicans are also attempting to distract from the fact that last month they passed the largest cuts to healthcare in American history as part of their big, ugly bill. Republicans are stripping healthcare away from 16 million Americans so they can give giant tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations, two groups that don't need any help right now.

Now, Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of years, we have made significant progress in addressing the opioid overdose crisis. Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced a 24 percent decline in drug overdose deaths for the 12 months ending in September of 2024, compared to the previous year. This is encouraging news, but I am deeply concerned that the Trump administration's attacks on public health, coupled with the Republicans' attacks on Americans' healthcare will seriously threaten the improvements we have made.

The bill before us today permanently schedules fentanyl-related substances on schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. This is based on a class definition disputed by scientists. I oppose this bill because it is a permanent extension instead of a temporary one that we agreed on for 2 years in the end-of-the-year appropriations package.

Now, that bipartisan package was pushed aside by Speaker Johnson after Elon Musk voiced his opposition to the overall package. The temporary option would have left the door open for an off-ramp to substances found to have potential medical applications. However, this Republican bill would also exacerbate inequities in our criminal justice system because drugs placed on schedule I include mandatory minimum sentencing. S. 331 also does not provide additional resources for prevention, treatment, recovery, or harm reduction.

So this bill is essentially recycling an incarceration first response to what I consider mainly a public health challenge. That is because Republicans don't want to talk about this as a public health challenge. Instead, President Trump and House Republicans want to focus on piecemeal policies in the hopes it will distract from their efforts to gut Medicaid and drug treatment programs.

Now Republicans are sabotaging Medicaid, which will be devastating to people who struggle with mental health and substance use issues. Medicaid is the single largest payer in the country for behavioral health services, covering 40 percent of all Americans with opioid use disorder.

Americans with substance use and mental health issues will face new barriers and red tape in signing up for and staying enrolled in their health insurance. House Republicans are setting up new barriers and roadblocks to care that will, unfortunately, result in our mental health and substance abuse crises only worsening.

Republicans are silently standing by as the Trump administration is moving forward with an unauthorized and illegal plan to eliminate the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, better known as SAMHSA. SAMHSA is the very agency responsible for preventing substance use disorder, increasing access to treatment, and promoting recovery.

It will be combined with other agencies that the Trump administration doesn't care about under the banner of a larger make America healthy again office. Now, these critical programs to treat mental health and substance abuse will be deprioritized or eliminated in favor of Secretary RFK, Jr.'s, pet projects, like destroying Americans' access to vaccines. He is going to prioritize that, and not SAMHSA and substance abuse treatment.

Congress has received zero information from the Trump administration about how this new office will work and how the work of SAMHSA to address the mental health and substance use treatment needs of our community will be prioritized.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Nation's leading mental health and substance use treatment organizations. It is called the Mental Health Liaison Group.

Mr. Speaker, this letter is in strong opposition to the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate SAMHSA, as well as their reference to drastically cut funding and eliminate critical SAMHSA programs.

As they write in this letter: These proposals ``would have devastating consequences for the 84.5 million Americans with a mental health and/or a substance use disorder, many of whom rely on SAMHSA's programs, research, oversight, and leadership to address critical mental health and substance use disorder needs.''

Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration is also rescinding more than $1 billion in essential funding that States rely on through block grants. This rescission is wreaking havoc on States' efforts to support prevention, treatment, and recovery. That is because States, counties, and towns are the main places where these treatment programs are.

My Republican colleagues refuse to hold this administration to account for these devastating and illegal cuts. Instead, they are trying to distract with this bill. This bill is opposed by nearly 190 national, State, and local public health, criminal justice, and civil rights organizations.

So, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose it as well.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand. What I am saying is that if we don't treat mental health and substance abuse as a public health crisis and, instead, we just say that we are going to have mandatory sentences and throw everybody in jail, lock the door, and throw away the key, then I don't think that is going to solve the problem.

I will continue to highlight that while Republicans propose these mandatory sentences and want to put fentanyl permanently on the schedule, that is not the answer to this mental health crisis. It is not the answer. The answer is to provide adequate treatment, and education. It is also to prevent the drugs from coming into the country but not just to put people in jail and throw away the key.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think House Republicans know that we can't simply schedule our way out of this crisis, but they have refused to pass bipartisan solutions that address prevention, treatment, and recovery to help stop overdose deaths.

I know that they passed reauthorizing the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act last week, but the bottom line is that all of the programs under the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act that have helped with treatment, helped with education, caused the number of overdose deaths to decline are being gutted. The staff that administer them and SAMHSA, the program that they are under, all of these things are being either eliminated, gutted, or the funding frozen by the Trump administration.

My point today is this is not just a criminal justice issue. We must combat this opioid crisis through a multipronged public health approach.

Nearly half of all people in Federal prison today have been convicted of a drug-related offense, with a racial and ethnic disparity among those convictions.

Access to treatment remains a challenge today. In 2023, according to SAMHSA, approximately one-quarter of the people who are classified as needing substance use treatment received it in the last year. People with a substance use disorder who are untreated are eight times more likely to die of an overdose compared to those who receive medication treatment.

Just putting people away and throwing away the key is not the answer. Cutting back on the treatment programs, and the education programs under SAMHSA, is certainly going to make things worse.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman of our committee knows I have great respect for him, but the bottom line is that this bill does not consider individual circumstances. It is not just people that are selling drugs.

Look, I totally agree that if someone is selling fentanyl, it is a totally different situation from someone who is arrested for possessing it. The fact of the matter is this bill covers both those who possess it, using it for themselves, and those who are selling it--maybe those who have a huge ring of selling it.

My point is that when there are mandatory minimums, all those people come under the same rubric. The legislation, because it now makes permanent fentanyl on the schedule I, the mandatory minimums apply, and the harsh penalties do not consider individual circumstances.

I don't want to keep repeating, but I will, about how the legislation has no resources for prevention or treatment and just simply locks people up. The point is that there are going to be families and communities, because of the minimum mandatory sentencing and the inability of the judge to look at the individual circumstances, that we are going to repeat the same mistakes that were made for many years responding to other drugs.

Right now we know that people of color have been disproportionately incarcerated and sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences. The trend of racial disparity also can be seen in prosecutions for offenses involving fentanyl and fentanyl analogues.

The Sentencing Commission data from fiscal years 2021 to 2023 provides strong evidence that these prosecutions disproportionately target people of color.

I would like to get beyond the point here when we debate these bills of saying that mandatory sentencing is a good thing, regardless of whether they are charged with possession or selling or how much they are selling, but that is not what this bill does. They get locked up. There are no individual circumstances considered. We know the consequences of that for people in many cases who, in my opinion, if I was the judge, would not impose these harsh mandatory penalties.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the chairman of our Health Subcommittee said, and I am not arguing with him that we have to look at the fentanyl crisis in many ways, particularly at the border, and prevent it from coming into the country from China and other places that flood this country with it. Yet, my point is that what we are hearing from the Trump administration and from the Secretary of HHS, Robert Kennedy, Jr., is that we are going to defund substance use disorder programs, mental health programs, and treatment.

The fact of the matter is that about 58 percent of the people in prison right now have a substance use disorder. People with these disorders have challenges in getting appropriate treatment, and incarceration often exacerbates their symptoms. By having these mandatory penalties and putting more people in prison, who are, in many cases, only there because of mandatory sentences for possession of fentanyl and analogues, it only exacerbates their condition. It leads to individuals staying incarcerated longer, and they don't get treatment.

In the congressional justification for the Trump administration for a healthy America, the HHS agency proposes to cut various substance use and mental health programs that are helping State and local health departments combat the opioid crisis.

For fiscal year 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services proposes to zero out State opioid response grants, the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant, first responder training, youth prevention and recovery programs, and many, many more. I talked about this recently.

The bottom line is that if you zero out all of these programs--I think it is over $1 billion that has already been frozen--you are going to have no opportunity locally to actually help people with treatment and education. All you are going to do now is just throw them in prison, which only exacerbates the problem.

In the President's budget, they propose to cut SAMHSA programs that assist with harm reduction strategies to help those in need, as well as programs to help prevent Americans from using controlled substances. The President's budget also calls for reducing opioid overdose prevention and surveillance by $29 million.

I think that every dollar that is cut for prevention, treatment, and education is a life that is left unprotected. Terminating these critical programs and offices just puts millions of lives battling substance abuse in jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, I wish my colleagues would spend time on these issues of protecting public health and coming up with solutions instead of retreading a bill that prioritizes this criminal justice approach, which I think doesn't work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), who is our assistant minority leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, we had this bill in the House back in February, and then it went to the Senate. Essentially, what came back today for final approval or final passage is the same bill.

As was mentioned by my Republican colleagues, if it passes today, it goes straight to the President's desk. At the time in February, when we were discussing this bill, I had pointed out that President Trump had just pushed a scheme, really, straight out of Project 2025 to choke off virtually all Federal funding, including halting over $8.6 billion in grant funding for the Federal programs to combat the opioid crisis. At the time, congressional Republicans just stood by silently as it happened.

Trump halted over $6.5 billion in funding for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, which supports treatment programs and prevention efforts. He also halted nearly $1.5 billion in funding for the National Institutes of Health drug abuse and addiction research programs, which conduct and support research on substance abuse and addiction, basically to better understand the causes of addiction and identify treatments and interventions that reduce overdoses.

Trump also halted all federally funded programs that provide critical opioid-related services, including federally qualified health centers, which serve a high proportion of patients disproportionately impacted by the opioid crisis.

The Department of Health and Human Services also eliminated the workforce training programs, including the Integrated Substance Use Disorder Training Program, which trains professionals to provide opioid use disorder prevention, treatment, and recovery services.

Mr. Speaker, we went to court over a lot of these things, and many of them were overturned. Yet, I don't want anyone to think that the President is giving up. He is going to continue his efforts to illegally cut these programs, and I mentioned some of them before. Again, House Republicans are doing nothing to halt any of this.

In addition to that, I have to say that the big, ugly bill passed a couple of weeks ago by the Republicans, I think, altogether, between Medicaid, the ACA, and Medicare, because of sequestration, cuts, I don't know, I would say $1.7 trillion or so.

Understand that Medicaid is the single largest payer for behavioral health services in the United States and covers nearly 40 percent of all individuals with opioid use disorder. Medicaid covers a full array of services and support for people with behavioral health needs, including services and supports that typically are not covered by other health programs.

This is an assault on every effort for prevention and treatment of opioid disorders, whether it is cutting Medicaid, eliminating SAMHSA's programs, or cutting the money that goes back to States and towns to help people with treatment.

Mr. Speaker, again, this bill is a distraction because it gives the impression that if you lock somebody up with a mandatory penalty, even if it is just for possession, and throw away the key, that is going to solve your problem. It is not.

Everything that the President is doing and the Republicans are doing to support him completely eliminates or significantly cuts back on the treatment and the education that are going to be much more important in terms of trying to save people's lives.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the bill before us today is the Senate companion to H.R. 27, which we voted on here in the House on February 6 of this year. The two bills are identical, other than a couple of minor punctuation differences. This bill would go to the President's desk, and he said he would sign it.

However, since that vote in February here in the House, the Trump administration has seriously threatened our Nation's ability to confront the ongoing opioid overdose crisis by attempting to dismantle the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, as I mentioned, firing hundreds of workers, including senior key officials, and rescinding over $1 billion from State and local behavioral health programs.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to oppose this bill because it is a permanent extension of fentanyl-related substances as schedule I drugs instead of the temporary one that we agreed on for 2 years in the end of the year 2024 appropriations package.

The temporary option would have left the door open for an off-ramp to substances found to have potential medical applications. This bill would also exacerbate inequities in our criminal justice system because drugs placed on schedule I include mandatory minimum sentencing. Furthermore, S. 331 also does not provide additional resources, as I have mentioned, for prevention, treatment, recovery, or harm reduction.

For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the legislation, 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 489, I call up the bill (S. 331) to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the scheduling of fentanyl-related substances, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous materials on S. 331.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, most Members in this Chamber know someone who has been affected by the drug overdose epidemic plaguing our country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2023, there were more than 107,000 overdose deaths that occurred in the United States. These staggering numbers are due in large part to the increasing presence of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues which are approximately 100 times more potent than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin. The lethal dose of fentanyl is just 2 milligrams or about four grains of sand.

A loophole that the cartels have tried to use to traffic their illicit fentanyl into our country is by changing one part of fentanyl's chemical structure to create fentanyl analogues. The cartels did this in an attempt to evade our criminal laws.

Right now, fentanyl analogues are considered schedule I substances, but only because of a series of temporary scheduling orders, and that order is now set to expire on September 30 of this year.

That is why the HALT Fentanyl Act, led by myself and my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) in this House and then Senators Cassidy and Heinrich in the Senate, is critically needed.

This bill aims to curb overdose deaths by permanently scheduling fentanyl analogues as schedule I substances, Mr. Speaker. This will strengthen law enforcement's ability to prosecute fentanyl traffickers and act as a deterrent.

The HALT Fentanyl Act promotes research by improving the registration process so eligible individuals can conduct studies on schedule I substances

with the appropriate safeguards. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we have heard there may be as many as 4,800 analogues. My understanding is that experts at NIH and FDA and other agencies have studied roughly 30 of those 4,800 analogues.

By encouraging research of schedule I substances like fentanyl analogues, we can better understand how these substances work and how we can prevent potentially harmful impacts in the future. The temporary bans, Mr. Speaker, did not deal with the research component. So without this bill, we cannot legally do the research on the analogues that may, someday, be found to have medical benefits.

Because fentanyl itself has a proven medical use, it is considered a schedule II drug, but illicit derivatives of fentanyl, also called fentanyl analogues, currently have no demonstrated medical value.

Let me be clear. This bill will have no impact whatsoever on a physician's ability to administer fentanyl in medical settings. The HALT Fentanyl Act deals specifically with analogues, not medicinal fentanyl.

We must address this bipartisan issue immediately and not allow this temporary extension to expire in September.

Once fentanyl analogues are permanently placed into schedule I, Congress will continue to build off this work to continue to address the illicit fentanyl crisis in our country.

According to a 2021 GAO report, there was a 90 percent decrease in these analogues coming into our country the year they were placed temporarily into schedule I.

This bill is a critical step in combating the opioid crisis in our country because China and Mexico are heavily involved in this business. China sends the precursors of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, the API, or active pharmaceutical ingredients, to the cartels in Mexico who are then making the drugs and bringing them across our borders.

By making these analogues permanently schedule I, it removes the incentive to traffic these drugs into our country due to the penalties if they are caught.

China has even realized the risk of analogues themselves and has permanently scheduled these analogues on their strictest schedule. Other countries have followed suit and done the same.

This bill received bipartisan support on the House floor with a vote of 312-108 in February. The bill has the support of many law enforcement agencies and other entities calling for the need to pass the bill.

With passage of this version of the bill, it will be sent to the President's desk. I am hopeful the President will sign this bill into law quickly so that we can continue to combat this crisis and begin research in earnest to see if there is any benefit from any of the analogues that may help people who are afflicted having been addicted by accident or on purpose to fentanyl.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support S. 331, the HALT Fentanyl Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) who has helped lead the charge on this legislation for many years now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), the chairman of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), the vice chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), who I understand is the youngest Mr. Joyce in the House.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman said, this is an identical bill to the one that passed out of the House with the exception of a few technical changes the Senate made, including sticking their number on it instead of the House number. Other than that, it is essentially the same bill this House passed and, frankly, with bipartisan support.

I understand the gentleman's objections related to mandatory minimum sentences, but that is a different bill and a different day. That is not what this bill is about. This bill is about making fentanyl analogues a schedule I or making all of them schedule I substances.

The gentleman referenced that there is no off-ramp. I would suggest to him that the off-ramp is in the eye of the beholder.

What we did in this bill, and I think it is something that everybody on the floor can be proud of, we put into this bill the capability to do extensive research by universities, the NIH, and the FDA. We created a framework to do research on the 4,800 believed analogues of fentanyl.

I believe it has two advantages. One, if we find one of these analogues that has no harm and even has a positive effect for some issue, that creates your off-ramp. There is already an off-ramp in the law for drugs that show promise and have a medicinal benefit. That opens up other statutes. This one doesn't have that off-ramp, but other statutes do that would allow if somebody comes in and says, wow, look at what this does. It does good things in the X area or the Y area or whatever. This bill has the component parts to make that possible. Unlike our schedule I on marijuana, which never allowed research or realistic research and created some of the dilemmas that we have today with that substance. We fixed that with this bill.

Secondly, that research component, I believe if there is any benefit in the analogues at all, it may be that one of the analogues--I am not saying it will and I think the odds are slim, but it is possible that one of the analogues will have a blocking effect on the deadly aspects of fentanyl itself, and that would be a huge positive.

When my colleague says that it has nothing on dealing with the problem as far as people who have an addiction, he is right. It does not today, but that research component has great potential for the future.

In the short run, we stop the Chinese from bringing the precursors to Mexico and the Mexican cartels creating new analogues and trying to get around our laws by claiming it is not really fentanyl, it is an analog. We stop those attempts by the bad guys, the illegal people trying to bring this into our country and bringing it in, unfortunately, successfully. We stop it. We stop them using that technique to get around the law. Then we leave the door open for positive future benefits, if any, in the analogues.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have helped draft this legislation. I am proud to have drafted the part on the research component. I am proud that, notwithstanding the fact that they made a few tweaks and sent back a Senate bill rather than sending back mine and Mr. Latta's original House bill, I am proud to stand here today in support of the HALT Fentanyl Act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues in this House to vote ``yes'' and let's send it to the President's desk. Let's make this a permanent law in the United States.

As Chairman Guthrie said: It is not going to solve every problem, but it makes our kids just a little bit safer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H. Res. 488) denouncing the antisemitic

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 488.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 2 years since the October 7 attack on Israel, the deadliest terrorist attack against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Yet, still today, we are in a moment in time where our Jewish neighbors are being increasingly threatened. Anti-Semitic protests are more and more often turning physically violent and deadly, and they are inspiring additional violent acts.

Jewish students around the country are fearful as they watch spineless college administrators fail time and again to stand up to anti-Semitic harassment taking place on all of our beautiful college campuses. Right here in Washington, D.C., just 2 weeks ago, we saw a coldblooded murder take the lives of a beautiful, young couple as they exited the Jewish museum.

The young Israeli Embassy staffers were set to be engaged just 1 week later and their lives were snuffed out. Their families will never get to experience that beautiful ceremony and other cherished milestones of their life with them. They are gone because of a terrorist's hateful action. There are no words that can ever be articulated that truly represent what has happened to that family.

Just 1 week ago, thousands of miles away in the community of Boulder, Colorado, an unhinged anti-Semite carried out yet another terrorist attack. Peaceful marches called for hostages held by Hamas to be set free. They were attacked by a terrorist who shouted ``free Palestine'' as he lobbed homemade Molotov cocktails at them. Worst still, the act of terrorism was entirely preventable.

Mohamed Soliman is not an American but an Egyptian national who traveled to the United States purporting to be a tourist.

Let's think about what I am going to say here.

Years before Mohamed Soliman ever tried to come to the United States, he had posted on his social media his support for the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamist organization that has been deemed a terrorist group by governments across the world, including in Europe and in the Arab world.

Despite this, the last administration issued Mohamed Sabry Soliman a tourist visa, which admitted him into the United States of America. Once inside, Soliman took advantage of our immigration system, applying for asylum within 1 month of arriving in the country as a supposed tourist.

This action was in violation of the spirit of his tourist visa, which required that he not intend to stay in this country permanently. Indeed, the case of Mohamed Soliman reminds us

all that the integrity of our immigration system is vital to our very national security.

While we all should have learned this lesson after 9/11, it is clear that the last administration did not. Fortunately, this administration, the Trump administration, has taken a strong stance, once again prioritizing the integrity of our immigration system, and thus the security of all Americans, including Jewish communities.

This administration has shut down the open border, aggressively enforced the immigration laws, blocked the entry of aliens who are detrimental to the United States of America's interests, and taken a tough, tough stance against cowardly universities.

I am calling it as it is. They are cowardly universities that should represent what is right and good in America, and many of them are not. They fail to protect the Jewish students, vigorously vet aliens who wish to come to our country, and much more.

Legal immigrants who love America hate what was going on. We are so grateful that sanity is being restored to our America. At the same time, we do pray for the victims of these senseless acts.

Today, I call on my colleagues to support this resolution to honor the victims of the Boulder terrorist attack. We must all stand with our Jewish friends, colleagues, and neighbors. They are not alone. They are not alone, and we will not tolerate this scourge of anti-Semitic hatred in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just a few words first. I want to speak a little bit about Mr. Evans because he may not say it himself. He has served in our military, served proudly in our Army, and he has served in Colorado as a police officer. He has done more, not only served in one or the other, but served both, and did so with honor, decency, and respect. I think the benefit of having him here, he brings a lot to the table about this issue because I know that he has served and worked in Mr. Neguse's actual district, in his territory, as well. I hope maybe he will speak about that, although I know he didn't necessarily plan to do so. He is my friend and a good man. I know he cares deeply about this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just address a couple of things before we move on. Let me say that, first of all, as we all know, it was referenced over there something about Mr. Evans and what bills get to the floor. As a freshman Member of Congress, I can guarantee you that he is not determining what bills get to the floor in the United States House of Representatives.

Secondly, sometimes the simple truth is something, most especially in Washington, D.C., that we here in Congress just avoid or don't see with clarity. Here is the simple truth, and this is what Mr. Evans was trying to get at: His resolution, yes, it is different than mine. Mine focused purely on anti-Semitism here in the world, but he brings up a valid point, not only for Jews but for many innocent victims, whether it was Laken Riley or whether it was the women who were raped, the women and men who were killed, those who were beaten, or those who were hurt who were in law enforcement.

Illegal immigration is not a good thing. Yes, there are a few illegal immigrants who came to this country who are illegal but just trying to make their way but doing it the wrong way, but there are also real bad folks who got in.

The simple truth is--let's get back to what happened--the man, the individual human being, who did this atrocious act, who made these Molotov cocktails, and who fashioned a flamethrower was an illegal immigrant with a bad history.

There would be people who are good human beings in this country who would be alive if we didn't have an open-door border policy. That is the simple truth. It is not complicated.

That is not using Jews. It happened to be Jews that got hurt this time. It is not using women when it was women who got raped. It is not using children when children were beaten and raped by these illegals. It is not using them. It is stating the facts of how awful and terrible what it is that we have been doing in this country by allowing known murderers to exist and to stay in the country and not detaining them, giving them due process, and then, at the very least, deporting them.

That is Mr. Evans' point here. That is what he is trying to say. That is what he is trying to bring forth. It is a simple but important truth that somehow we are trying to avoid.

Finally, again, I will address it because my friend, and he is my friend, my friend from New York addressed what is going on in California. Here is the other rule in the United States of America. In the United States of America, you can rally, demonstrate, and express your viewpoint. You have freedom of speech. It doesn't mean you beat people. It doesn't mean you put cars on fire. It doesn't mean you destroy buildings. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to hurt other people.

We are a nation of the rule of law. There is a simple truth.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Colorado (Mr. Crank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that had the Biden administration adequately screened this individual, this murderer, if they had screened him the way they should have, if our borders had been operating correctly, if they looked at his social media, they would have known that he consistently posted anti-Semitic videos. He consistently posted violence. He would have been denied, and all this wouldn't have happened.

How simple is that? Is this too complex for us in Washington? Maybe it is just too much simple truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I simply ask our Members on both sides of the aisle--I believe there will be Members on the other side of the aisle--to vote for both of these resolutions.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Goldman mentioned, I represent Boulder, Colorado, in the Congress. I live in Boulder County. My wife and I are incredibly blessed and lucky to be raising our family in this community.

Last week, I introduced a bipartisan resolution denouncing this heinous anti-Semitic terror attack in my community. H. Res. 476, a resolution that makes clear that we stand with the Jewish people, the Jewish community, and which explicitly calls for us to do more to address the scourge of anti-Semitism.

Mr. Speaker, that resolution is broadly supported by the members of Colorado's congressional delegation. Colorado has eight Federal lawmakers here in Washington. Six of the eight joined that resolution. I thank Republican Representatives Jeff Crank and Jeff Hurd for doing the right thing and joining that resolution so that we could speak in one voice in denouncing this attack.

There were two Members of Colorado's entire congressional delegation who refused to join this resolution. One of them, Mr. Gabe Evans of Colorado, instead decided to introduce the resolution that the House is going to consider today. This resolution is not bipartisan. It is not carried by the Member who represents this community. This a first, by the way, Mr. Speaker, in the precedence of this House, that the majority would not give the Representative who represents the victims the opportunity to speak on behalf of their community, but Mr. Evans decided to proceed anyway.

Mr. Speaker, of course, because Mr. Evans does not represent this community, the resolution that he has introduced is riddled with inaccuracies. That is not a surprise. It is why it is important for Members who represent communities that are besieged by tragedies like this one to have the opportunity to introduce a resolution and have that resolution considered on the floor.

Let me give you some examples, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Evans' resolution claims that there were 14 victims of this attack. He is wrong. There are 15 victims. Maybe he got that from Google or found it in a newspaper article, but had he been involved in the conversations with law enforcement, as I have, he would know that there were 15 victims of this terrible attack.

It is poor decorum to ask this body to vote on a resolution that lists the wrong number of victims. They are my constituents. They are real people who were burned half to death by a terrorist 7 days ago. The least you can do is list the right number.

Mr. Evans' resolution also says that ``reportedly one victim was a Holocaust survivor.'' She is not reportedly a survivor. She is a Holocaust survivor. There is no doubt to that. There is no allegation to that. I know because she is my constituent. The word ``reportedly'' should be struck from this resolution.

My colleague's resolution, Mr. Speaker--Mr. Evans' resolution, to be clear, because we are considering multiple resolutions today, so I am talking about the resolution from Mr. Gabe Evans of Colorado--does not mention once, not once, the Boulder Police Department, the officers who I represent who put their lives on the line to save members of the community 7 days ago.

The resolution that Mr. Evans has offered doesn't mention the FBI once, not once, whose swift response was so integral. The only law enforcement agency that Mr. Evans mentions is ICE, the one agency that was not in Boulder that day.

We should have the decency to recognize the Boulder Police Department and the officers who I represent who put their lives on the line 7 days ago. It is the least we can do. We have a resolution that does that in a bipartisan way. Had the House majority, the Republicans, done what Republicans and Democrats in this Chamber have done since time immemorial, since I have served in this body, which is allow a Member to put his resolution to the floor for a vote, mistakes like this wouldn't happen.

Now, I know that an earlier version of this resolution that Mr. Evans introduced, which he tweeted about, talked about the fact that this was because Colorado was a sanctuary State. He has removed that language from this resolution, so I am heartened that he now concedes that is an inaccurate claim, that that language is not in this resolution.

However, in times like these, I would have hoped that my colleagues would be willing to come together to properly honor the victims and to condemn anti-Semitism, as I have said, as our resolution does.

It is not hard to do the right thing, Mr. Speaker. The question that Mr. Evans should answer is: Why? Why not join his two other Republican colleagues in Colorado and join the bipartisan resolution that thanks the Boulder Police Department, that thanks the FBI?

The purpose of these resolutions is to unite the Congress, not divide it. The purpose is to unite us in condemning violent attacks like these, to make clear that we stand with the Jewish community today and always and that we will be there for them in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage you, read the resolution that Mr. Evans introduced. You will not find a single reference--not one--to the victims' families, the people I met with over the weekend, the people I marched with. There is nothing in Mr. Evans' resolution about standing with the Jewish people. Nothing. The word ``Jewish'' is mentioned once in this resolution. The terrorist's name is mentioned 13 times. There is no mention of this being a hate crime. There is nothing in the resolution about the anti-Semitism that is metastasizing across the country that Mr. Van Drew and I agree is a scourge.

So much of what Mr. Van Drew said is in the bipartisan resolution that I introduced. None of it is in the one that Mr. Evans introduced. There is not one mention, Mr. Speaker, in his resolution of Run for Their Lives, the organization that was targeted by this terrorist, the organization that has been pushing for the release of the hostages. They couldn't include one reference to the organization that was targeted? One?

I have served in this body, as I mentioned previously, Mr. Speaker, for 6\1/2\ years, and I have seen a lot of partisan debate unfold on this floor, but I think it is disgraceful to not give my community an opportunity to see our resolution considered on this floor.

I don't know how the Republican majority can force a vote on a resolution like this that gets so many of the basic facts wrong. I had hoped that my Republican colleagues would choose a different course, but they have yet to do so. There is still time.

The Speaker, the majority leader could put our bipartisan resolution on the floor for a vote. They could fix the defects in the resolution that Mr. Evans has introduced. I would implore them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, very simply, can we amend Mr. Gabe Evans' resolution with the inaccurate information so that it reflects the accurate information about the number of victims? Can we just change the number from 14 to 15 and add the Boulder Police Department and the FBI? Then, the law enforcement agencies in my district, in particular, the Boulder Police Department, can be recognized by this House.

Mr. Speaker, there are three Republican Members in the Chamber: Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Crank, and Mr. Evans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House proceed to a vote on H. Res. 476, the bipartisan resolution condemning the anti-Semitic attack in Boulder.

Mr. Speaker, I again simply ask Republican leadership to do the right thing and to bring H. Res. 476, the resolution I have introduced to condemn this attack in my community and in my district, to the floor for a vote. I think what the Republicans have decided to do is shameful. I couldn't be more disappointed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), the Representative from Boulder.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for such moving and important remarks, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Colorado would indulge a quick question before he leaves.

Yesterday, there was a rally with thousands of people in Boulder, Colorado, commemorating the victims and celebrating Jewish culture and people. The two Senators from Colorado were there. Mr. Neguse was there. I would just ask if the gentleman who is introducing this resolution to commemorate, ostensibly, the victims of Boulder was in his neighboring district to be with the victims and the community.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans) to respond to the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for answering.

According to reporting this morning, the other previous obligation that the gentleman from Colorado had was to appear at a political campaign conference of the Speaker here in Washington, D.C., with three other Members who flipped districts.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it was essential for the gentleman from Colorado to be the fourth Republican Member to have flipped a district last time to speak with donors in Washington, D.C., so that he could not return to Boulder, Colorado, to commemorate the victims who were the subject of this resolution that he so misguidedly introduced because this resolution is the exact opposite of Mr. Van Drew's resolution.

This resolution uses anti-Semitism, uses Jews, for a political objective. This was an anti-Semitic attack. The victims were Jewish. One victim was a Holocaust survivor. There is no question that the motivation of the perpetrator was anti-Semitism. It has nothing to do with how he got into this country.

If you want to have an immigration enforcement conversation, let's have an immigration enforcement conversation because this has nothing to do with that.

For the gentleman from Colorado to break precedent in the House of Representatives to prevent the Member representing the victims of this horrific attack from leading a resolution representing the families, I hope it is simply because he has been here for only 6 months and does not understand the traditions of this institution.

It would be a shame if this is where this institution has gone, if the partisanship has gotten so deep, so raw, and so uncontrollable that we can't follow the custom of having the victims' Representative introduce a resolution condemning such a horrific attack like this.

On top of that, to use this for some bogus immigration argument where he falsely characterizes Colorado as a sanctuary State and falsely represents that there were law enforcement contacts with the perpetrator when the only information we have is that there were some 911 hang-ups that traced back to an address where the perpetrator was living, to argue that somehow this is a reflection of our immigration system uses Jews as a partisan pawn.

It is the exact opposite of what we Jews in this country need. I get that we are in a political body. I get that they like to put these resolutions--Mr. Evans wasn't here last term, but there were about 10 anti-Semitism resolutions that effectively said the same thing, solely to score political points.

We Jews are sick and tired of being used as pawns. Anti-Semitism is rising to such a degree that people are now being murdered because they are Jewish. We are not just talking about protests on campus anymore. Every single Jewish institution has to significantly increase security. We all have to worry when we go into a synagogue whether we will be the next victim.

Here we are, dealing with this resolution, trying to convert anti- Semitism

and anti-Semitic violence into some immigration gotcha game.

What are we thanking ICE agents for in a resolution commemorating and condemning anti-Semitism and remembering and honoring the victims when there were no ICE agents there? ICE has nothing to do with it. It is because ICE is spending so much time pulling nonviolent, noncriminal immigrants out of court, where they are going through a lawful process to come in here, so that they can be removed in expedited removal; so that they can have their asylum claims, a lawful pathway, voided; and so they can be kicked out of the country with minimal due process just so Republicans and President Trump can meet their quota of mass deportations.

Mr. Speaker, we were promised they were going to go after convicted criminals. These people are not convicted criminals.

This resolution says that there is cooperation between State, local, and Federal law enforcement. Really? As far as I know, the President of the United States ordered the National Guard to go into California over the objection of the Governor of California, something that has not happened since 1965. In 1965, it happened because the Governor of the State was not following Federal law.

Is that the kind of cooperation that we are looking for here?

This resolution should be pulled immediately.

Mr. Van Drew and Mr. Neguse have offered resolutions that properly honor the victims, condemn anti-Semitism, and give the American people the sense of Congress that we, as a unified body, will not tolerate anti-Semitic violence. Instead, we are voting on an immigration gotcha resolution that uses anti-Semitism as a political pawn.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you and my colleagues on the other side to come to your senses. Stop using anti-Semitism as a partisan weapon. Pull this resolution. Allow Mr. Neguse's resolution to be introduced and voted on, as is the tradition of this body, in parallel along with Mr. Van Drew's, which accurately reflects the threat not just in Boulder, Colorado, but in Washington, D.C., in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and all around the country.

We still can do the right thing. It is still possible, and I am certain the American people would greatly appreciate seeing some bipartisanship out of this body on a topic that is so important to so many.

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

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).