H.Res. 530

Mr. Speaker, that was riveting. I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, contained in this rule are two immigration bills, one of which Congress has already passed, another of which directs the administration to do something they already have the power to do.

There is a nonbinding resolution here to condemn rioting. We had an interesting conversation in the Rules Committee last night, and I don't remember Republicans offering a nonbinding resolution to condemn the riots that occurred outside this building on January 6, 2021.

We can't even get the Speaker of the House to hang the plaque expressing gratitude to the law enforcement officers who protected us that day that a law says he has to hang, so please forgive me if I think this one rings a bit hollow.

Then, we have an appropriations bill that continues this trend toward privatizing VA services and blocks women who are veterans from being able to get abortion services at the VA in most cases. Republicans are trying to restrict the freedoms of the people who are willing to fight and die for our freedoms. Republicans are unbelievable.

I am glad that we are here on the floor debating, Mr. Speaker. I just don't think we are debating what 90 percent of Americans want us to be talking about right now, which is the chaos and confusion that this administration has created and the real fear

that Americans have about this country being dragged into another quagmire in the Middle East.

The bottom line is that this administration is acting insane. The President yesterday said there was going to be a cease-fire forever between Israel and Iran. They are back to bombing each other this morning. The cease-fire he bragged about didn't even last a day.

He has inserted us into this war with zero thought to the consequences. We are bombing Iran. Iran is bombing us. The risk of miscalculation is massive, and the entire Republican Party is just going along for the ride.

Stephen Miller, a top administration official, is on TV talking about Donald Trump like he is Kim Jong-un. It is creepy.

The majority says they are not in a cult. Now is their chance to prove it.

Trump is doing literally the exact opposite of what he promised to do in his campaign. Instead of having the courage to say something, 99 percent of these guys suddenly decided they are in favor of endless wars. The mental gymnastics that takes is nuts.

Mr. Speaker, if it looks like a cult, if it acts like a cult, maybe, just maybe, it is a cult.

I thought Republicans said they were going to lower food prices. Food is just as expensive as it was 6 months ago, and now, we are dragged into another war in the Middle East. This isn't America First. This is not even normal. It is nuts.

This is an administration in way over its head that thought ending a war was as easy as ranting on Truth Social. Now, American troops and taxpayers are paying the price for their stupidity and carelessness.

Let's be crystal clear. These strikes were illegal, unauthorized, and unconstitutional. No debate, no vote, no evidence of an imminent threat--that is not how this should work. If we are going to drop bombs and put American lives in danger, Republicans in Congress should be willing to come down here and have the courage to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' so that people know where they stand.

Meanwhile, while families are bracing for gas prices to go up and dealing with food prices that never came down, these guys want Congress to ignore all of that and rubberstamp their big, ugly tax scam, a scam that hands tax breaks to billionaires while ripping food off kids' tables and healthcare out of seniors' hands.

Mr. Speaker, these guys do not know what the hell they are doing, and America is paying the price. Trump said there would be a cease-fire forever, and it lasted 1 day. He said the big, ugly bill won't touch Medicaid and won't screw over middle-class families, but the bill cuts 16 million people off their healthcare and ransacks the food budgets of working people.

Guess what. You can't trust him. You can't trust a word this administration says. We should be debating a War Powers Resolution. We should be talking about their awful, ugly bill that is working its way through the Senate. Instead, Republicans want business as usual, endless wars, and tax cuts for the rich.

Enough is enough. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues again about what is happening here. Trump said he would end the war in Ukraine on day one. He didn't. Last time I checked, it is still going on.

He said he wouldn't get us into another war. He just did. He said there was a cease-fire that would last forever. There wasn't.

He said his bill won't kick people off of Medicaid, and it will. Sixteen million people are about to lose their healthcare, and it is going to adversely impact rural areas even more so because of what he is doing.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what he has been doing since midnight? He has been on Truth Social. He has posted nearly 30 times since midnight on Truth Social, first of all declaring victory and that everything is beautiful and then retweeting posts calling for him to get the Nobel Peace Prize.

He is more interested in getting an award than he is in protecting people's healthcare and making sure that people in this country have enough to eat and that children don't go hungry.

I mean, these priorities, maybe they are the majority's priorities. They are not my priorities. I think they are all screwed up.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act of 2025, which would block the Republicans from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits and kicking people off these lifesaving programs as part of their reconciliation bill.

Last month, House Republicans jammed through their multitrillion- dollar tax scam by a one-vote margin. As a reminder, this bill includes the largest ever cut to food assistance and will strip healthcare from 16 million Americans, all while adding $3.3 trillion to the debt.

Mr. Speaker, some Republicans didn't even know what was in the bill when they voted for it. Yet when they had the chance for a revote 2 weeks ago, because they screwed it up the first time, they voted to cut Medicaid and SNAP again.

As we stand here, debating unrelated immigration measures, Senate Republicans are moving forward with their version of the big, ugly bill. Because House Republicans broke so many rules when they passed their bill the second time, they are going to have to vote on it a third time when it comes back from the Senate.

Miraculously, due to their own ineptitude, Republicans have given themselves yet another opportunity to protect healthcare and SNAP for millions of Americans. Let's see if they vote this time to bring up the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Figures).

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that everybody is going to be adversely impacted by the big, ugly bill. Senior citizens, children, and everybody in between will be impacted.

In the gentleman's district in Georgia, it is estimated that a total of 41,718 people will lose their insurance. It is estimated that 33,400 will lose Affordable Care Act coverage. Mr. Speaker, 8,318 will lose Medicaid coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how Republicans go back to their districts and meet with their constituents. I guess they don't meet with their constituents anymore. I know the Speaker of the House said Republicans shouldn't do townhalls.

At some point my Republican colleagues will have to face them. How do they tell their constituents they voted for a bill that will adversely impact them?

The cuts in SNAP alone will increase hunger in this country substantially. We should talk about how we end hunger and, instead, Republicans are moving legislation to increase hunger.

We should have a country where everybody has healthcare coverage. Instead, they are pushing a bill that will throw people off of health insurance. I don't know how people do that. I don't know how they go home and talk to constituents about the fact that they are here fighting on their behalf.

I thought our job, no matter whether Democrat or Republican, was to fight for things to improve the quality of life for everybody in this country. That is not what this big, ugly bill is about.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say the Senate has actually made the Medicaid provisions worse, if that was possible. Even more people will lose it. That is not me saying it. It is the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, saying that. It is not Jim McGovern or Democrats. The Congressional Budget Office is saying it.

It talks about not only how many people will lose their healthcare coverage and how many people will lose their SNAP benefits, but it talks about how much this is going to add to the debt. It will add trillions.

The people who are deficit hawks, they all talk a good game. They are going to be tough on the budget. They are going to make cuts to make sure we can balance the budget, except they don't. They add another $3.3 trillion, basically to give tax breaks to billionaires.

Who does that? Who thinks that is a good idea? I don't think I know any billionaires. I am hard-pressed to find somebody out there who is a billionaire who says he really needs another tax cut.

We ought to reject this big, ugly bill that they pushed through the House and that is on its way back from the Senate.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question to the gentleman is: If he doesn't represent any billionaires, why is he for tax cuts for billionaires?

Why are Republicans for tax cuts for billionaires? Maybe it is because they write out big campaign contributions. That is really a cynical thing. That is what is at the heart of all of this.

The gentleman said that taxes will go up for middle-class families in Massachusetts. We actually gave them a chance in the Rules Committee. We are for middle-class tax cuts. We are for extending them. In the Rules Committee, I offered a number of amendments to exempt billionaires from the tax cut. Every Republican, the gentleman included, voted ``no.'' They wanted to make sure that the billionaires got the tax cuts.

Then we said: What about millionaires? Let's exempt millionaires. Let's keep the tax cuts for the middle class and exempt millionaires. Everyone on the Rules Committee, including the gentleman, voted ``no.''

By the way, if people want to know what is going on here, the cuts to SNAP alone are $300 billion. The cuts to Medicaid in the Affordable Care Act are $1 trillion. The tax cuts for people with incomes in the top 5 percent are $1.6 trillion.

The numbers don't lie, but it kind of shows what this debate is all about. This is about a transfer of wealth from those in the middle to those at the top. It is about rewarding and enriching those who are well-off and well-connected. It is about punishing those in the middle and those fighting to be able to just get by, to put food on the table, and to make sure they go to the doctor if they or their kids get sick.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Simon).

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

I, and I think everybody on the Democratic side, oppose violence and criminality, and people who commit violence ought to be held to account.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he would join with me in publicly condemning the pardon of all those who committed such heinous crimes and so much violence here on the Capitol on January 6.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to gentleman if he wants to condemn the pardons. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, Governor Newsom is not going to pardon those who looted stores or committed violence or attacked law enforcement, but Donald Trump pardoned the people who attacked the men and women who were protecting all of us here, our staff, and all of the people who work here.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he wants to condemn the pardons that Trump gave to all those who committed these terrible crimes on that horrific day.

Silence.

We can't even get the Speaker of the House to hang a plaque honoring the men and women in law enforcement who defended us.

What is wrong with this place?

Violence is wrong no matter whom it is committed by. The difference here is that Governor Newsom will not pardon people who committed violent crimes.

Again, Mr. Speaker, as we are gathered here today, we have a President who all he seems to want to do is tweet. As I said before, he has posted nearly 30 times since midnight. He took credit for a cease- fire which, by this morning, was broken. He attacked Federal Reserve Chair Powell. He attacked Representative Ocasio-Cortez, and he attacked Representative Thomas Massie. Again, I think attacking Massie may replace golf as the President's favorite pastime.

Of course, while talking about Representative Massie, Trump had to pat himself on the back for winning elections in Kentucky. He also posted multiple times about the Nobel Peace Prize. That is what he cares about, getting an award. It is all about him, not saving healthcare, not ending hunger, but getting an award.

We need serious people working to solve real problems, and what we have is a reality TV show White House with a stream of consciousness press operation, and it is supported by a Republican Congress that thinks it is a debate club rather than an equal branch of government.

This Congress doesn't even debate real things. The President sent our troops to bomb another country this week, and that is not what we are here debating this week. We are debating a meaningless resolution and bills to further demonize immigrants.

Enough, Mr. Speaker. Let's try work on something, anything, that will help real people. This is not the way government is supposed to operate. It is not working. People are being hurt.

While we are having this discussion here today, this big, ugly bill is winding its way through the Senate to come back here to the House.

I predict that my Republican friends, as always, will say: Oh, I am really concerned about the cuts in Medicaid. I am really worried about people who will lose their healthcare. Yeah, I know, I wish they weren't cutting SNAP so deeply. Oh, yeah, I really care about this and care about that.

Do you know what they will do, Mr. Speaker?

They will come here, and they will cave. They get in line because they are afraid of even asking a question about what this President is doing and what this administration is advocating. We need to do so much better around here.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous that this is what we are doing this week when there is so much happening in the world. By the way, again, let's make sure everybody understands this: This big, ugly bill that is coming here is about a tax break for billionaires. I just showed you the figures, Mr. Speaker. There is more money going to billionaires than anybody else in the tax bill, and they are cutting programs like SNAP and Medicaid. It really is shameful.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple of things. The gentleman has had 30 minutes, and he couldn't spend 30 seconds to condemn the Trump pardons of those who viciously attacked our law enforcement on that terrible day on January 6. We have a Speaker of the House who won't hang a plaque that he is supposed to do under law honoring the law enforcement who were here protecting all of us and who were beaten right outside that door.

It is crickets on the other side. They can't bring themselves to condemn that. They can't say that the pardons were wrong. I don't get it.

I have spent my entire life fighting for peace, and when Trump says that he wants peace, where is the peace?

He said that he was going to bring peace to Ukraine on day one. Instead,

what he has done is he is constantly giving comfort to the Russian leader. He has lambasted Zelenskyy in the Oval Office and can't say enough nice things about Vladimir Putin.

That is not my idea of peace. That is capitulation. That is giving in to a vicious aggressor. I am sorry, if the gentleman thinks that that is peace, then we have a very different opinion of that.

Again, we all hope and pray that things de-escalate in the Middle East. Here is what we know: We don't know whether Iran still has nuclear material, and we also know that they have been lobbing bombs at each other still. We know there is tremendous unrest in the Middle East, and we don't really know what the endgame is. That is why we should have a debate, and that is why Congress has a role to play.

Again, Mr. Speaker, you may think that all that Donald Trump is doing is fabulous, and that is great, but do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

You should also, as a Member of Congress, want to defend the powers of the legislative branch and understand that we have a role in this too, and that sometimes through debate, if people decide they want to support the President's policies, well, that just strengthens his hand. If people have real questions, then maybe we have to take a different course.

I was around here when we rushed to war in Iraq. We did have a debate, but we were given faulty information by the administration at the time. We were lied to. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and look at what that cost us in terms of life, treasure, and credibility around the world.

Mr. Speaker, again, I think there are things that we should be focused on here right now that are much more pressing than the items that are before us here today.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman: You say that you support and respect the men and women who protect us here, the law enforcement who protect us here, yet you can't bring yourself to condemn the action that pardoned those individuals who viciously attacked law enforcement. Also, nobody on the Republican side will demand of the Republican Speaker of the House to hang the plaque that, by law, he is supposed to hang honoring the law enforcement who defended us on that day.

I think that is a lack of respect. That is a lack of respect to law enforcement. The Republicans can't even condemn the rioters who were here on January 6.

So what the hell is wrong with this place?

Mr. Speaker, I will close with this: Congress alone has the power to declare war, not Donald Trump, not his Truth Social account, and not his campaign donors. This administration cannot be trusted with that power. They have no plan, they have no strategy and no clue. Just follow him on Truth Social. Every day they stoke chaos abroad to distract from the misery that they are causing at home.

Mr. Speaker, does anyone remember the last time a Republican President misled the Nation about WMDs, using vague evidence to drag us into a war in the Middle East? He stood under a mission accomplished banner, and then we were at war for nearly a decade, and it cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

I guess the 2025 version of a mission accomplished banner is a Truth Social post telling everyone that this was a spectacular military success.

Give me a break. Mr. Speaker, 2003 called. They want their foreign policy back.

Republicans want to keep everyone divided and distracted. They went to distract us from their big, ugly bill, a tax scam so cruel and corrupt that it actually makes working families poorer just to make billionaires richer.

They want to distract us from the fact that under Trump's watch, grocery bills are sky-high, farmers will suffocate under tariffs, and now families are bracing for a spike at the pump because this President started a war, and he has no clue how to end it.

Well, I won't be distracted. We see this chaos for what it is: reckless, stupid, and dangerous. We see this tax bill for what it is: greedy, immoral, and bad for working people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this House to stop rubber-stamping chaos and to stop rubber-stamping corruption. Let's do our constitutional duty: Stop this illegal war, end this rotten tax scam, and stand up for the people we work for.

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.

With this strained legislation, we are bumping into two major social problems: deadly drunk driving on our roads and a broken immigration system. Alas, we are not doing anything to solve either problem. The bill pretends to do something about both of them, but it really does little or nothing about either of them.

We lose 11,000 people a year to drunk driving crashes. More than a million people are arrested on DUI charges every year, Mr. Speaker. I lost a beloved cousin of mine in Florida who was in the prime of her life just after graduating from college when she was killed by a drunk driver while she was riding a bicycle on the roads of Florida.

I take this issue of drunk driving very seriously. I have worked on it fastidiously for a long time in my career. There is a lot we could do in Congress to improve safety on the streets, including imposing a nationwide mandatory ignition interlock device on the cars of all convicted drunk drivers. We did that in my State of Maryland after fighting the liquor lobby for a long time, but we finally got that done.

We could also pass my bill, the Sarah Debbink Langenkamp Active Transportation Safety Act, which would support State and local government efforts to build safer transportation networks for bicyclists and for pedestrians.

Unfortunately, this bill does not do anything like that. Indeed, it is hard to see how it will reduce drunk driving at all.

It is obviously not a serious attempt to address the social problem of drunk driving. It does not increase criminal penalties for DUI anywhere in the country. It does nothing to promote public education about the dangers of drunk driving. It will, sadly, improve nothing on the roads.

As an immigration law, it does nothing to make it more difficult for undocumented people to enter our country unlawfully, nor does it make it easier for people to acquire the documents to enter the country legally.

It is a purely punitive measure, and it is both radically underinclusive and radically overbroad.

It only targets the very tiny fraction of all DUI violations in the country committed by noncitizens and does nothing to crack down on drunk driving by citizens, who are responsible for the vast majority of it.

Immigrants who drive drunk are already covered by the criminal law, and the undocumented ones are already categorically deportable. They don't need to drive drunk to be deported. They are deportable now because they are not in the country lawfully.

Additionally, because of the breadth of DUI statutes around the country, this legislation will render deportable people who never drove drunk at all without any opportunity for judicial discretion or waiver. Under current immigration law, undocumented people are already both inadmissible and deportable. Furthermore, conviction for serious DUIs already render even lawful permanent residents who have been in the country for decades potentially deportable and inadmissible in the first instance.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, any noncitizen who is convicted of or who admits to a crime involving moral turpitude, a so- called CIMT, is generally inadmissible to the country. Likewise, any noncitizen who is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude where a sentence of 1 year or longer may be imposed is deportable from the country. Serious DUI offenses are already deportable crimes under current law.

The following DUI offenses are all considered crimes involving moral turpitude: any DUI where the maximum possible penalty is a year or more and where there is serious bodily harm, hit-and-runs, any aggravated DUI, and any DUI involving driving with knowledge of having an invalid, suspended, or revoked license.

This bill goes far beyond even this very stringent current law by making permanent resident green card holders deportable for a single infraction even where no one is hurt and no property is damaged. This will lead to some very harsh results.

In Arizona, sleeping in your car while drunk without even starting the car can get you convicted of a misdemeanor DUI. Under this bill, a single conviction for even that offense would make a 20-year permanent resident of America, a green card holder, deportable from the country.

That person is rightfully deportable if they engage in an act of drunk driving that hurts someone or kills someone or if they drive drunk without a license, but that is the law today.

An undocumented alien is, of course, deportable in all cases. You don't need a statute to deport them for falling asleep drunk in their car.

Today, there are nearly 13 million green card holders, permanent residents, in the United States. These are people who have followed all the rules. We are not talking about undocumented people, the people who are here unlawfully. They are already taken care of.

There are 13 million green card holders in the United States with 9 million eligible to become citizens now. Categorically deporting individuals who are convicted for any DUI offense without any regard for the severity or consequence simply defies common sense. This legislation on a tiny subset of criminal events distracts from the real problem.

My distinguished colleague has invoked several terrible drunk driving incidents by repeat offenders who are undocumented. They should have been deported from the country long ago. My colleague is talking about people who drive drunk and kill people. That is already a deportable and inadmissible offense. That is not what the meaning of this legislation is.

Let's look at a tiny slice of the criminal events we are talking about and ask whether, in fact, that is something that advances public policy. I don't think it does. Let's work together to impose compulsory ignition interlock devices on the cars of all convicted drunk drivers, including the overwhelming majority who are U.S. citizens. Let's really make the roads safer and stop the repetitive scapegoating of immigrants.

We can address DUIs in a serious way here in Congress if we are serious about the issue. That is what I did as a State senator in Maryland. We could do that across the country, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia has just offered us a vivid demonstration of what is wrong with this bill and how the rhetoric supporting it doesn't support the bill. He describes an indescribably tragic, terrible case where an undocumented alien is driving a car and kills people in the gentleman's district.

First of all, that person already could be deported just by virtue of being undocumented.

Secondly, under current law, having killed someone, he would be immediately deportable. He was convicted of his offense, sentenced to jail, and he would be deported immediately upon leaving. In fact, the President could commute his sentence, which is what he has been doing, and have him deported right now. You don't need this bill in order to make that happen.

That is a demonstration of why this is superfluous legislation. All it does is to say in a case where, say, nobody is hurt at all, the case of somebody who is asleep in their car in Arizona, for example--there are statutes like that

where you don't even have to be in a moving vehicle. If someone is drunk inside a vehicle, nobody is hurt, and there is no property damage, that person could be deported as a permanent resident even if they have been here for 20 years with kids in school and nothing else on their record.

That is all this bill is doing. It is an opportunity to get up and make speeches about how we are going to get rid of people who kill people in their cars as drunk drivers. That is already the law.

What I am saying is if we are going to take the time on the floor to deal with the problem of drunk driving--and, again, I take this very seriously because I lost a cousin to a drunk driver who is a U.S. citizen, not a noncitizen. The vast majority of drunk driving incidents occur because of citizens, not because of noncitizens, because the vast majority of the people in the country are here legally as citizens.

Let's do a serious thing. Let's say anybody convicted in the country--a U.S. citizen, a permanent resident, or an unlawful person who is somehow still in the country--must have a permanent ignition interlock device put on their car.

Obviously, the undocumented person is going to be deported. Fine. Now, what about everybody else? Should convicted drunk drivers be able to just go back out on the road?

This is the fight I had with Republicans in Annapolis when I was a State senator. They were the ones saying that is too harsh a punishment. I am saying to them, no. Maybe it is painful that you have to go through the ignition interlock device, which says you do the Breathalyzer in your car before you can drive again. They say that it is painful to have to do that every morning and going back from work. That doesn't compare to the pain of someone who loses a mother, a father, a son, a daughter, a cousin, an uncle, an aunt, or what have you.

If we want to deal with drunk driving, let's seriously deal with drunk driving. This legislation is not the way to do it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

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

Madam Speaker, one can only regard with amazement the high indignation with which the previous gentleman speaker just mobilized against the Democrats in Congress. He accuses us of not taking DUIs seriously, and nothing he said could provide a more striking contrast between the parties.

I am afraid I have to go there. I was hoping not to have to go there. I seem to remember when we met in joint session at what would have been the State of a Union address in this year of 2025.

We left the Chamber after several years of--it seemed like years-- several hours of President Trump's speech. We got outside. Then a car plowed into the back of a parked police cruiser. The police descend on this situation. The door opens up. The driver staggers out. It turns out it is the chief of staff to Speaker Mike Johnson.

He is then administered the Breathalyzer test. He got a DWI. He is driving while drunk. Maybe it is a DUI, driving under the influence, in the District of Columbia. Speaker Johnson immediately said that everybody deserves a second chance and we should forgive him. We didn't make a big deal out of that.

We have a law right now which allows for the deportation and the inadmissibility of anybody who goes out and drives drunk and injures somebody. If they are here unlawfully, they are kicked out anyway. We are talking about permanent residents to the country. If they go out and get a DUI and injure somebody, they are immediately deported from the country.

They talk about all those cases. Those cases are already covered. We are talking about those cases where somebody is not injured at all and there is no property damage at all. They want to deport those people, even if they have family and even if they have been in the country for 15 or 20 years. They don't even want to give any discretion to the judge to decide.

That is what the disagreement is about. It is about this very small matter in a small number of cases where nobody is injured.

If the distinguished gentleman and his colleagues are really interested in doing something about drunk driving in America, let's use this as the occasion to do it. We have a bill, which is a bipartisan bill, called the End Driving While Intoxicated Act. It has been introduced by Mr. Mann, my colleague from Kansas; my colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Pappas, who is in my party; my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, who is in the Republican Party; and by myself.

We are the lead cosponsors. What it says is if a State is going to get Federal funding for highways and then if somebody is convicted for drunk driving in their State, there must be a compulsory ignition interlock device installed in the car.

What does that mean? For a period of time after someone has been convicted for drunk driving, they have to breathe into a Breathalyzer machine before their car will start. Some of our colleagues say that is too much or that it is too painful for them to go through that. No, it is too painful for us to lose thousands of people on the streets every year to drunk drivers.

If we are serious about the problem and the gentleman invites us to be serious about it, let's be serious about it. Let's do what a majority of the States have done. Let's make this a nationwide program. A compulsory ignition interlock device is saving lives across the country. I think it is in 31 States now and in the District of Columbia.

Why don't we do that? Why don't we do something real, rather than talk about cases that have nothing to do with the bill? Already if a person goes out and kills somebody in their car, they will be deported from the country. Whether they are a lawful permanent resident or an undocumented person and they could have been deported anyway, that is already taken care of.

I know that those are the lurid episodes that we want to invoke for this legislation, but that is not what this legislation is about.

In any event, it doesn't do anything to reduce drunk driving in America. Let's reduce drunk driving in America. Could we get behind that bipartisan legislation?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, forgive my emotion. For those of us whose families have experienced it and who have lost people on the roads, drunk driving is a problem of immense magnitude and seriousness. It changes the lives of families all across the country all the time.

I wish our colleagues on the House Committee on the Judiciary would bring out the End Driving While Intoxicated Act legislation to spread the compulsory ignition interlock device around the country. A majority of States and jurisdictions are using it right now. It is working. It should be nationwide.

We can save literally thousands of lives by doing that because it is a very, very small percentage of the population that engages in the profoundly antisocial act of driving drunk. For those who are undocumented, they are already covered, and they are already gone. For those who go out and seriously hurt people or kill people, they are already gone. That is already deportable. That is already inadmissible.

In an effort to try to find another way to go out and demonize and vilify immigrants, this legislation is now picking on people who are permanent residents of the country and could have been here for decades with their families. They get a DUI, which is a terrible thing regardless. They get a DUI, nobody is hurt, and there is no property damage. Then they want to deport those people from the country.

They want to kick those people out of the country. I presume they have got their votes together. They will vote for it. I presume it passes. It doesn't do anything to deal with the problem of drunk driving in America.

The vast majority of drunk driving episodes have nothing to do with a permanent resident who drives drunk and doesn't hurt anybody. That is not where we are losing lives. We are losing lives because there is a small percentage of people who drive drunk repeatedly. The vast majority of them are citizens.

We are not taking that seriously enough, but a lot of States are. In fact, a majority of the States have now imposed the compulsory ignition interlock device on people who have driven drunk and are convicted of it.

That is what we should be working on. That is something that will actually effectuate a change and make a difference. Why can't we do that? That is all I say to my colleague.

I hope they will join us in this legislation. It is bipartisan legislation that comes from the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). I am on it. We have Republicans. We have Democrats. Why don't we do something real to make the roads in America safer?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 530, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 516) condemning the violent June 2025 riots in Los Angeles, California, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 516.

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple weeks ago, the entire world witnessed horrifying scenes out of Los Angeles: Molotov cocktails and bricks being thrown at officers, Waymo cars being lit on fire, American flags being burned, and roadways being blocked.

Today, we will stand as a House to condemn these acts of violence and to condemn the irresponsible politicians who refused to adequately address them.

I think it is important to understand from the beginning the events leading to these horrific scenes.

We should first recognize that ICE was undertaking operations in Los Angeles that have been very standard across administrations, Democrat or Republican.

President Obama, after all, carried out millions of deportations, and the priority has always been to focus on those who have a criminal record and who pose a risk to the public. That is precisely what ICE was doing in Los Angeles. Among those targeted were murderers, pedophiles, and drug traffickers.

It should also be recognized that one of the reasons that some of these people had to be sought out in the community is that the city of Los Angeles and the State of California have chosen to enact sanctuary policies that explicitly forbid ICE from taking custody of these dangerous individuals in the safest and least disruptive setting, in a custodial setting, that is, in jails. That is the explicit purpose of our sanctuary laws.

Despite these facts, as these operations were being carried out in a standard and targeted way in Los Angeles, you had certain politicians who engaged in inflammatory rhetoric, who then had individuals gather to disrupt the activities of ICE and our Federal officers, and then you saw these extreme and horrifying acts of violence.

I will be very clear: I will defend in any way that I can the right to assemble and protest regardless of the content of what the protesters are advocating. This is foundational. It is fundamental to the American system of government, but violence is another matter entirely.

This is not just a matter of protests crossing a line. Violence is the antithesis of protests. It seeks to shut down the process of deliberation, argument, and debate. It seeks to exalt force over reason. It is an abandonment of the American experiment of self- government.

By the way, this is especially true when the very purpose of the violence is to impede the policies of a duly elected President from being carried out. It is to say that a violent agitator should be able to overthrow through force the will of a democratic majority that has been established through a democratic, free, and fair election.

That is what we bore witness to in Los Angeles. Yet, instead of doing everything possible to restore order, to protect the citizens of Los Angeles, to protect our law enforcement officers, and our Federal officers, you saw certain irresponsible vainglorious politicians in California decide that this was their star-making moment, where they would egg on the violent agitators, where they would try to pick a fight in every way they could with the President, even going so far as to file a frivolous lawsuit that was thrown out unanimously by the Ninth Circuit.

Worst of all, these politicians decided to place the blame for the violence on our incredible National Guard members, somehow saying it was their presence there that caused it. This is deeply offensive, and our National Guard members are owed an apology.

Today, I hope we can stand together, Republicans and Democrats, in making it very clear that protests and assembly are fundamental rights in this country and that acts of violence are a grave threat to those rights.

Specifically, this resolution recognizes the right to assemble and protest peacefully, condemns unequivocally the violence perpetrated against Federal, State, and local law enforcement, calls on local and State-elected leadership to work with the Federal Government to end the violent riots and restore peace, and expresses gratitude to law enforcement officers, including the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, California Highway Patrol, Orange County Sheriff's Department, and other local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies, including the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement for keeping our communities safe in the face of danger.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let's make sure that we are dealing with the facts as they actually occurred. The assertion the LAPD had the situation under control; we all saw otherwise on our television sets. The LAPD chief himself said that every person in Los Angeles should be disgusted by what occurred.

The Governor has, himself, in the past, recognized the virtue of using the National Guard when you had situations that required reinforcement.

This notion that somehow the President was taking over the State's law enforcement authority, the Ninth Circuit said otherwise unanimously. Even a Biden-appointed judge said: The President was exercising his authority to prevent the disruption of the enforcement of Federal law.

As to this notion that the violence was largely confined to downtown L.A., I can't agree with the assertion that it is somehow less objectionable to have violence occur within a concentrated area than on a more diffused basis.

Finally, this disparagement of our ICE officers for wearing masks. I think that this is outrageous. We have seen threats against our ICE officers absolutely skyrocket. It is very ironic for folks that had no problem forcing 2 year olds to wear masks all day, in defiance of even the World Health Organization's guidelines, that are now somehow objecting to Federal officers who feel the need to do this in order to protect themselves and their family.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

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

As to the comments of my colleague from California, he set forth his view as to what the priority and the limitations ought to be when it comes to deportation policy. He is, of course, acting appropriately in doing so. That is his right, and that is his prerogative as a Member of Congress, as it is for any citizen.

This resolution does not have anything to do with the merits of his view. This resolution simply states that one should not use violence in order to advance that view. I would hope that this should be a principle we should be able to agree on on a bipartisan basis.

As to my colleague from Maryland's claim that this resolution is somehow set up in a partisan way, nothing could be further from the truth. The resolution simply condemns acts of violence. We are opposed to sanctuary policies. We are opposed to putting a target on the back of our Federal officers, and, frankly, to defunding the police.

It is not our fault that those who have allowed this violence, who have promoted sanctuary policies, who have put a target on the back of our officers, and who have called for defunding the police all happen to belong to one party.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

Mr. Speaker, this notion that the President manufactured a crisis is simply asking us not to believe our eyes. You actually had Members of Congress from California who said that there was no violence, even though we all saw on television cars being lit on fire, Molotov cocktails, and bricks being thrown at officers. Among many other acts of violence, we had several officers who were injured during the process.

What did the President do? He asked our dedicated National Guard members to come in to protect Federal property and Federal officers.

To say that this somehow was what caused the crisis is not only completely at odds with the facts as we all witnessed them but is incredibly offensive to our dedicated National Guard members who went there and have successfully managed to keep the peace.

As to my colleague from Maryland who has now accused us of defamation with this cause, whereas California's leadership has prioritized protecting illegal immigrants and violent individuals over United States citizens, that is simply the very purpose of a sanctuary law, be it California's sanctuary State law or Los Angeles' sanctuary city law.

The entire purpose of these laws, their explicit effect, is to provide special protection for those who have not only come into the country illegally but have committed crimes.

I will give you an example of how sanctuary policies work in practice. We had a case not far from Sacramento where there was an individual who was in police custody for assaulting a peace officer. He had been arrested and was in custody. This is during the Biden administration, by the way.

ICE saw that he was in custody and asked to take custody of him from the sheriff's office so that he could be deported. The sheriff's office had to say, no, sorry, we are not allowed to do that under the sanctuary State law.

The next week, that man murdered his own three daughters as well as their chaperone, a horrific crime that never would have happened if not for California's sanctuary policies.

In a similar vein, many of the operations which ICE conducted in a targeted and standard way in L.A. would have been unnecessary if it were not for a sanctuary policy that forbade them from taking custody of these individuals within a custodial setting.

I would simply ask my colleague from Maryland: Are we to take it from his remarks that he would support reversing the sanctuary policies that have caused so much harm in California and Los Angeles?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an odd notion that we have heard repeatedly, that the violence was only concentrated in part of L.A. and that we need to zoom out and look at the city as a whole.

For the folks who had to deal with this chaos in downtown L.A., it is little comfort to them that things might have been more serene in Beverly Hills.

My colleague from California uses the term ``hellscape'' for L.A. I am not sure I would use that term.

I can say that L.A. has had a lot of problems, so much so that the sheriff's department even had to come out and tell folks not to wear their jewelry when they go outside, to just put it on after they get to their destination.

As to the assertion that somehow this is a made-for-TV spectacle created by the President, I ask what made for more sensational TV images, the Waymos being set on fire and the Molotov cocktails being thrown at officers, which is to say that the things that happened before the National Guard got there, or our dedicated National Guard members standing outside Federal buildings, making sure that no further damage to property and life occurred?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the assertion has been made repeatedly that the President's deployment of the Guard escalated tensions. We have seen zero evidence for that. We all saw the images of the horrifying violence that occurred before the Guard came in.

For my colleagues who continue to assert that there was something untoward about the President deploying the Guard, I would also remind them that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled otherwise.

In a unanimous decision, the court analyzed the relevant statute which provides that the President has the authority to make use of the Guard in order to stop the execution of Federal law from being disrupted.

The judges looked at the facts on the ground and said when Molotov cocktails are thrown at officers, when a commercial dumpster is used as a battering ram in order to break into a Federal office building's parking lot, when roadways are shut down, this looks a lot like there is a disruption of the ability to carry out Federal law.

Again, it is not me saying this. This is a unanimous panel of Trump- appointed and Biden-appointed judges who came to that determination.

I will happily answer the question of my friend from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) about what is the question when it comes to agriculture. Here is what the law says. The law says that coming into this country without authorization is categorically illegal.

Then it is within the discretion of the executive branch how to prioritize deportations. Across party lines, there has always been a strong focus on prioritizing those with criminal records. Beyond that, different Presidents have chosen to exercise that discretion in different ways.

For example, President Obama chose to deport millions of people during his time in office. It is ultimately a matter of how the President chooses to carry out that policy.

Here is the important point for purposes of today's debate. Whatever a person's views are on that matter, whether they favor deporting everyone in the country illegally or whether they favor deporting no one in the country illegally, we should not, cannot, and absolutely must not use violence in order to advance that point of view.

That is the principle at stake in today's debate. To vote against this resolution is to countenance what happened with the horrifying events we saw in my State.

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

Mr. Speaker, if it is true that law enforcement is somehow never allowed to be in something other than their uniform, I think there are a lot of people who have gotten tickets for running a stop sign, when there was an unmarked car there, who would be happy to hear that. They now have a new basis to challenge that.

I think we are all aware that there are circumstances, like when someone is undercover or when they are doing a stakeout, in which it doesn't make sense for the official to identify himself as an officer.

Of course, that is neither here nor there because in these very targeted operations, we have seen that these folks are very clearly identified. To the extent that some have chosen to not have their faces revealed, it is because we have seen the threats against ICE absolutely skyrocket over the last several months.

It is, again, quite ironic when there were folks on that side of the aisle who were all about masks in the most absurd of settings during the COVID years. We had people playing singles tennis or out on the ocean paddleboarding required to wear a mask. There were 2-year-olds wearing a mask all day when no other country did this.

Yet when Federal officers, undertaking dangerous activity, trying to do their jobs, yet facing threats, being doxed and feeling like they and their family are at risk, choose to take this protective measure, now my colleague has a problem with it?

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

Mr. Speaker, what happened in L.A. put on stark display years of reckless and failed policies, starting with the millions of people who came across the border illegally during the Biden years and then the sanctuary policies that California has enacted, not to mention the countless people who have been released from prison early thanks to reckless crime policies.

Today's resolution is not about any of that. Today's resolution is about something much simpler, a notion that I would hope would be unobjectionable: that in this country we settle our differences through reasoned arguments and debate and not through force and violence, that we make political decisions through elections and not through riots.

I hope that this resolution will receive strong bipartisan support on the floor today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the chair of the California Democratic Delegation who leads the 45 Democrats in the California delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am moved by the comments of the distinguished gentleman from California, and I wonder what our colleagues think the value is other than of a purely political nature to a resolution that purports to be honoring law enforcement when it is set up on a completely partisan basis. I wonder what the value of that is.

I especially wonder what the value of that is when the majority doesn't even stand by actual law when it comes to honoring law enforcement because this body on March 15, 2022, passed a resolution to put up a plaque, a simple plaque to honor the noble and brave police officers who battled for 4 or 5 hours to stop a violent riot and insurrection unleashed against this Chamber and against the Senate in an attempt to overthrow a Presidential election.

We voted to erect a plaque in their honor. That was on March 15, 2022. It was supposed to have been put up on March 15, 2023. We are now more than 2 years overdue in honoring those police officers, 140 of whom were wounded, injured, disfigured, and many of them permanently disabled. Several lost their lives in the days to follow that atrocity, attack on this body.

There is a law which says put up the plaque, and Speaker Johnson and the majority will not put the plaque up which is why you walk in the House Office Buildings now, everywhere there are poster replicas of that plaque being put up.

Now they want to pass a resolution deploring violence that took place thousands of miles away from here, and it is just a resolution, a hortatory resolution. They can't even get bipartisan support because of course they have to set it up on a polemical, partisan basis instead.

What is the utility of that resolution when they won't even follow an actual law to honor police officers who put themselves between us and a bloodthirsty mob?

That is not a partisan point because the Republicans denounced it at that time as terrorism, as an attack on this institution, as intolerable, as unacceptable.

I am happy to share with my colleague, who I know wasn't in Congress at the time, all of the statements made by Republican leaders at that time begging Donald Trump to send in the National Guard, which he controlled because it is the District of Columbia National Guard, and he didn't do it. He sat and watched it, eating hamburgers or whatever, in the White House on TV, ignoring all of the appeals to send the National Guard to come and defend Republican and Democratic Members of Congress.

Now we have got a law which says put the plaque up in honor of these officers, and they can't do it, but they want to bring a totally partisan resolution to the floor deploring violence thousands of miles away, and you have got Members of Congress from California saying that they are not capturing what actually happened there.

However, no, it has got to be another opportunity for partisan division. Why? Why can't we honor law enforcement together and follow through on our word?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague invoke Abraham Lincoln in the rejection of disunion secession and violent attack on the Federal Government.

Neither of my colleagues who is on the floor has said a word explaining why they won't put the plaque up to honor hundreds and hundreds of police officers on the Capitol Police force, the Metropolitan Police Department, and the Montgomery County Police throughout the region who came to defend us. Why won't they put the plaque up if they are really such big supporters of the police? That is a law.

They just want to pass a resolution. Their resolution, of course, is completely political. One of their whereas clauses is: ``Whereas, California's leadership has prioritized protecting illegal immigrants and violent individuals over U.S. citizens.''

That is just defamation of the law enforcement officials in California. It is defamation against the Governor of California, the mayor of Los Angeles, the sheriff in Los Angeles County, the chief of police in L.A., all of whom fought to put that violence down when riots broke out, something Donald Trump never did when the riots broke out that he incited against us.

Remember, he was impeached by this body for inciting a violent insurrection against us. Not only did he not do anything to defend us, but he was the one who caused the whole chain of events that led to the deaths that took place that day and the violence that took place that day. My colleague won't utter a word about it. He won't say a word about it.

All of the attempt to focus everybody over there is a distraction from the fact that they still, to this day, are defending what Donald Trump did with January 6. Why? It is because they also defend his lie that he won the 2020 Presidential election, which he lost by more than 7 million votes, 306 to 232 in the electoral college.

I don't know what the meaning of their totally partisan resolution is when they won't even stand by the law--it was signed into law by the President--to put up a plaque, a simple plaque honoring police officers who fought tooth and nail for hours against the most bloody, vicious, violent insurrectionist mob ever to attack the Capitol of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her excellent point. The California delegation has advanced, with Ms. Lofgren, a truly bipartisan resolution that deplores all violence because the political violence is getting out of control in America.

We just had colleagues in Minnesota who were the subject of assassination attempts, and, of course, the former speaker of the Minnesota House was killed, along with her husband, and a State senator was wounded, along with his wife.

We deplore all the political violence across the board, and we defend the right to speak. We look for policies from the Federal Government that will not exacerbate conflict but will reduce conflict.

This resolution is far from being nonpartisan, as my distinguished colleague argues. In fact, it attacks the Governor of California, Members of Congress, California leadership, and the mainstream media. I mean, come on.

We know the difference between what is a partisan, gotcha resolution and a resolution that actually attempts to unify people around common values.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California talks about defunding the police. He might want to update his talking points because look who is defunding the police. President Trump and the

Republicans are defunding the police, and we know that because we debated it for hours on this floor.

His DOGE agents, back when Elon Musk was still in town before he got run out of town by somebody, DOGE said a guy in the Department of Justice cut out an estimated $500 million in community project funding to police departments across America, victim rights organizations, and others receiving those grants. They have not been able to explain it. They didn't even know it was happening.

Of course, they unleashed DOGE on the Department of Justice and hundreds of millions of dollars in State and local law enforcement, victim assistance, rape survivor organization grants, all of that was cut by them. Of course, they are also cutting more than a billion dollars in law enforcement funding in the DOJ appropriation this year.

We don't need any lectures about defunding the police from people who are actively defunding the police and people who are refusing to follow the law in honoring the police. My friend from California refuses to utter a word about that.

Could somebody please explain why they are not following the law and putting a plaque up to honor the officers who came to save our lives on January 6?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has engaged in a spirited defense of the immigration policies of the administration. I wonder if he would clarify for us what the policy is this week, or at least today, with respect to agriculture in California or any other State.

President Trump heard from the Secretary of Agriculture and large agrarian interests saying that his immigration policies were destroying agriculture in America by getting rid of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people who work there and that they are disrupting the entire agricultural economy.

Then, Donald Trump announced that there were some very fine, good workers within the agriculture sector, and they would not be enforcing the law there. That lasted for several days, and then there was a reversal. They went back to saying, yes, we will be doing ICE immigration crackdowns again.

Then, Donald Trump heard again from the Agriculture Secretary, as I understand it, and other interests, and he said no, they would be leaving some of these people alone.

I wonder if the gentleman could clarify that for us, and I wonder whether it causes him to second-guess in any way his absolute support for these policies. Maybe it suggests that there is something wrong with what they are doing and that the administration could go back to the drawing board.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are getting somewhere in this debate. The gentleman concedes that it is within the discretion of the administration to decide where to target resources.

I was just trying to find out where the administration is this week because we are getting conflicting accounts of whether or not they are still targeting farmworkers. We are getting reports from California, Texas, and New Mexico that entire farms are shut down because there have been ICE raids. The other workers are afraid to come to work.

They are begging the President to do something. The President then said we would stop doing that. Then they reversed it when Stephen Miller got involved. I think now the agriculture interests are getting involved. They should get the policy together.

It speaks to an underlying problem here, which is that the overwhelming number of arrests now are not of people who are criminal suspects for anything. Mr. Speaker, 65 percent of the people who have been taken by ICE since this administration began had no criminal convictions at all.

That is why we read articles in The Wall Street Journal about small, rural towns that voted for Donald Trump. They are up in arms and are in an uproar because people who have done nothing wrong and are pillars of the community are being taken away from their workplaces, their farms, their restaurants, their businesses, and their homes.

I ask the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), who I know to be a serious student of the law because he was a student of mine of the law when we were at Yale Law School together: What authorizes the government to send people out who are not identified with any law enforcement insignia, who are masked and who are in unmarked cars, to arrest people? Doesn't that set the people up for danger in America?

That is what the assassins in Minnesota were doing. They showed up, dressed like some kind of vague police person without any law enforcement insignia, and in an unmarked car. That sets us up for danger.

Doesn't my colleague think the law enforcement norm is for people to know who police officers are so that they know they have to submit to their authority? I would inquire if my colleague would like to answer the question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there are masked agents in unmarked cars sent out, violating people's due process rights, as the courts have found. This includes all the way up to the Supreme Court. They are arresting Members of Congress. They are prosecuting Members of Congress for doing their jobs. They federalize the State National Guard when the police in Los Angeles and the elected officials are doing their jobs.

This is an authoritarian attack on constitutional democracy. We must get back to the rule of law.

If nothing else, the Republicans should put up the plaque they committed to put up, honoring the police officers who defended American democracy, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and everybody in this room during the January 6 violent insurrection which Donald Trump was impeached for having incited.

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

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

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

I, unfortunately, could not possibly disagree with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford), my friend, more on the description of this bill, which is why I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3944, the fiscal year 2026 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies bill.

While I unfortunately cannot support the bill on the floor today, I will say in Chairman Carter's absence that I am thankful and appreciative of the work that we have been able to accomplish together over the years on this subcommittee. I know he and I both prioritize quality of life for our servicemembers and their families and caring for our veterans.

Unfortunately, this bill hurtles us toward VA privatization, a top Project 2025 priority that undercuts what veterans consistently ask us for in Congress. They want high-quality medical care at the VA; not privatized care that takes longer to receive.

By transferring record funding from VA medical services to community care, which is a 67 percent increase of $14 billion, this bill pushes veterans into private care, even though veteran polls and studies show that when given the option, veterans prefer to receive their medical care at the VA.

In 2024, veteran trust in VA healthcare rose to a record 92 percent. We should build on this success, not kick veterans to an already crowded private market. I understand that there is a need for community care, especially for veterans in rural areas and specialty care when necessary, and when appointments at the VA are scarce.

However, countless studies show that when veterans seek care at private hospitals and clinics, they wait longer to see providers, and they get worse care. They know VA medical professionals choose this work due to their mission to care for our veterans, and that is something the private sector simply cannot replicate.

We should invest more in VA provider recruitment and retention incentives, increase benefits counselors and adjudicators, not ignore veterans' wishes and speed recklessly into privatization.

On the military construction side, this bill underfunds military construction by $904 million compared to the President's budget request, and fails to fund some specific needs such as installation resilience and NATO infrastructure commitments. As Russia continues to wage an illegal war in Ukraine and threaten Europe, we should be sending a clear sign that we stand with our NATO allies, allies who have stood by us for decades. We are talking about infrastructure for our troops who are over there, as well as our allies' troops.

We all know that warming global temperatures are having a devastating impact on our military installations, including sea level rise, recurrent flooding, hurricanes, and extreme weather, as well as extreme heat and drought, yet this bill includes zero dedicated funding to mitigate this extreme weather damage to our installations and force readiness.

We have seen time and again what devastating extreme weather can do to installations. In 2018, Hurricane Michael mauled Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, my home State, and cost the Air Force $4.9 billion to rebuild. When Typhoon Mawar ran through Guam and devastated the island, this Congress provided almost $1.8 billion to begin recovering from the damage. Unfortunately, we know that future need from Typhoon Mawar will cost many billions more.

Finally, this bill includes a plethora of harmful poison pill riders. It once again prohibits the VA from implementing its interim final rule to protect a woman's right to abortion and counseling. The message sent on that is clear: Republicans want to further limit women's access to healthcare.

Never mind if an abortion is in the best medical interest for the veteran, between her and her doctor. Disturbingly, Republicans think you should only have access to abortion if you are dying.

This bill has the government making personal medical decisions for veterans, not their doctor or the veteran themselves. It is a cruel and ironic way to treat those who fight for our freedoms by taking them away.

This bill also undermines VA's ability to keep at-risk veterans safe by preventing VA from reporting a beneficiary to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This rider prohibits VA from following Federal law to keep guns out of the hands of people who Federal law says should not have them because they are a danger to themselves or others.

My subcommittee receives notifications every time there is a suicide on VA property. Over the last year, Mr. Chairman, we received suicide notices from Asheville, Los Angeles, McAllen, Minneapolis, Las Vegas, south Texas, Puget Sound, and many, many more. Every single veteran committed suicide with a firearm. Every single one.

With all of these serious concerns, I cannot in good conscience support this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would certainly agree with the gentleman from Missouri if the Trump administration under Elon Musk's DOGE effort hadn't actually fired employees and interrupted the ability of employees of the Veterans Crisis Line from actually doing their job.

We have no idea how many people lost their lives as a result of that interruption in service. I would love to agree with the gentleman, but unfortunately, the facts on the ground actually reflect that they do not share the same commitment that we do to ensure the safety of our servicemembers and making sure that we look out for them.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), my dear friend who is the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a new member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan), a member of the Appropriations Committee. He just joined us, and I am happy to have him.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and a champion of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost), my colleague and friend.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to add some further information because the Veterans Crisis Line was referenced by the gentleman from Missouri.

I want to make it very clear that the Secretary of the VA actually did a YouTube video specifically denying firing anyone from the Veterans Crisis Line when, in reality, he fired 24 people who worked on the Veterans Crisis Line.

If there was any improvement to the Veterans Crisis Line in this bill, it is thanks to my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean), who was successful in passing an amendment that added $5 million to funding for the Veterans Crisis Line, and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood), who actually added an amendment that prohibits any further cuts from the Veterans Crisis Line.

We are certainly appreciative of the bipartisan support for that. However, I want to make it clear that we need to remain united in fighting cuts to the Veterans Crisis Line and ensure that veterans have everything they need and a safety net firmly in place.

With all the issues raised during this debate, Mr. Chair, from the blatant push toward privatization of VA medical care to the underfunding of infrastructure and climate resiliency projects and the harmful poison pill riders, I just cannot in good conscience support this bill.

It breaks my heart because we do have such a good working relationship across the aisle with Chairman Carter and myself. I look forward to working together to improve this bill. I know it is possible as we move forward, and I am hopeful. I urge my colleagues at this point to vote against it.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment contains noncontroversial amendments that raise awareness on programs that we all care about. That includes the need to address a variety of medical care issues at the VA, the need to build more childcare development centers, construct more State extended-care facilities, expediting claims processing, and many others.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), a fearless defender of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Goodlander), who is a new Member and a veteran of our Armed Forces.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not have any additional speakers, and I also yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this en bloc contains eight amendments that will make this bill worse than it already is.

It includes a funding cut to the Veterans Benefits Administration, further exacerbating the backlogs in processing disability compensation claims, leading to long waits for veterans.

The Republican MILCON-VA bill already cuts the NATO Security Investment Program by $188 million. This amendment would further cut it by another $4.1 million. It is shocking that my Republican colleagues would condone this, especially while they are offering amendments encouraging the speedier processes of claims and lamenting the delays in countless Republican speeches.

NATO infrastructure investment receives robust funding from our NATO

partners, but there is an illegal Russian war going on, so it would seem that we need more investments in NATO infrastructure now more than ever. Yet, this amendment would further cut into it.

The amendment also seeks to continue the Republican push to privatize VA medical care. The bill already includes a 67 percent increase to medical community care which is an increase without justification or rationale. We received no backup information from the administration whatsoever as to why they proposed this or why it is necessary because it isn't. It is a simple additional attempt to march the VA toward prioritization and away from what we know veterans want.

The amendment promotes untested and dangerous medical treatment for our veterans. It makes a bad bill even worse.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this en bloc doesn't do a single thing to improve this bill. In fact, it makes it worse. It cuts the Veterans Benefits Administration. It discriminates against veterans and doubles down on privatization of VA medical care.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee and the dean of women of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Hernandez).