Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Richard Zuschlag, a cofounder of Acadian Ambulance, national leader, and the very embodiment of Christian virtue.

Following a valiant battle with cancer, marking the end of a full and accomplished life, Richard has gone home to the Lord. For all who knew him and felt his compassion, Richard's 76 years are now the object of fond reflection and reverent admiration. His legacy will stand in perpetuity, sustained in the countless lives he touched.

`Richard Zuschlag' is a household name in Louisiana that is synonymous with charity, health care, and Louisiana business talent. Born in Pennsylvania, he first came to Louisiana as a young professional on work assignment. During this introduction, he came to love South Louisiana's community, people, and way of life. Ultimately, he chose to stay. Ever community-minded, he recognized shortcomings in local EMS services.

To fill this critical gap in medical service, Richard established Acadian Ambulance in 1971, as a provider of accessible, quality EMS care. He co-founded his Lafayette-based company with a revolutionary financing strategy, allowing clients to pay a very affordable yearly rate in exchange for full service. This winning formula opened private EMS service to Americans of all economic backgrounds. Richard's vision continued to shape Acadian Ambulance in this way, carrying it on a sure trajectory to success.

More than half a century after its humble start, Lafayette-based Acadian Ambulance is a nationally respected provider of quality EMS services--the culmination of Richard's career. All of Richard's work functioned according to his personal philosophy, endowed by his Christian faith. This approach, aptly characterized as `putting people over profit,' fused his business acumen and humanitarian impulse.

Driven by these virtues, Richard was clearly destined to revolutionize the EMS industry, uplifting millions. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's devastation, he deployed Acadian Ambulance's services to ease the suffering of fellow Louisianans in New Orleans. Richard directed this operation out of pocket, in lieu of a government contract or any guarantee of compensation. This occasion was one of many on which he courageously justified his

charity with morality alone. He always gave with disregard to any notion of self-preservation, even when his business could not afford to. Richard's Christian conduct of reckless selflessness foremost constitutes his life and legacy.

Millions of Americans now live reassured in the promise of Richard's work--EMS responders will come to their aid in moments of dire need. Richard's dedication has already culminated in countless saved lives and grateful families. Take heart that every life saved by Acadian Ambulance, now and forever, will be graced with the professional compassion of Richard Zuschlag.

As I contemplate the life of Richard Zuschlag, now in its entirety, Matthew 25 echoes in my mind: ``His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant, thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.'' Lord Jesus, thank you for Richard, and please hold him close in Your Kingdom.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, in a hearing earlier this year before the Oversight Committee, we had a young American, a squared-away young man, a former Army Ranger, who spoke on what it truly means to become a soldier. He told us: ``Training in the United States Army is meant to melt away the effects of civilian life and to forge Americans into soldiers.''

I concur with that young man, Mr. Chair. Our military was never intended to be and should not be a platform to advance social agendas.

Our Nation's military prowess not only keeps our homeland safe but a strong American military projects strength worldwide, deterring conflicts and pushing back against human suffering across the world.

While we remain the strongest fighting force in the world--this is true--we are waning, and the distractions that we experience within our own ranks must be addressed.

My amendment would eliminate the position of chief diversity officer of the Department of Defense or any substantially similar position. I appreciate that my colleagues, Jeff Duncan, Claudia Tenney, and Jim Baird, are cosponsoring my amendment.

The adoption of this provision will be a strong step in advancing a military that focuses on lethality and elevates excellence and performance, the values that made our Armed Forces great and indomitable worldwide.

This strength in that position worldwide, Mr. Chair, is indeed threatened by this cultural agenda, perhaps driven by good intentions, let me say, reflective of our journey as a nation as we have learned and evolved and grown into a better, stronger nation with regards to diversity, equity, and inclusion. No doubt, my colleagues' intentions to force that agenda within the parameters of our Department of Defense were well-intentioned, but it is injuring our military.

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

Mr. Chair, in 1988, I joined the Army. I went through boot camp and AIT in 1989 as Private Higgins, an enlisted man. Going through the military police academy in 1989 was quite grueling, and we lost a lot of people. We excluded many young soldiers, men and women. We excluded them because they couldn't perform.

The United States military requires exclusion based on performance. That is all we ever cared about.

We never had problems with recruiting in the United States Army. We missed by 40 percent last year. Do you know why, Mr. Chair? It is because families like mine that historically have served are not advising our young men and women to join the military now because of this insanity they have to go through and because it is weakness that has become embedded and woven within our DOD and forced upon our young soldiers.

You are injuring and you are setting your sons and daughters up for slaughter because war is brutal, and nobody in uniform cares about the gender or the sexual orientation or the skin color of the soldier next to them. All we care about is that they can perform.

This is the brotherhood that we forge. It requires discrimination. We discriminate against those young Americans who cannot make it. If they can't make the cut to earn a slot in our unit, then we exclude them from our unit. They go do something else in life. That is fine, but they can't be in the military.

So, good Lord, please support my amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 192, an act to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia, our Nation's Capital.

In reporting out H.R. 192, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability holds that Congress must act to exert its constitutional responsibility to oversee the District of Columbia and make certain necessary amendments to the District's law.

Since the voters entrusted Republicans with control of the House in the 118th Congress, the Oversight Committee has conducted long overdue oversight of our Nation's Capital City, including holding hearings on the District of Columbia.

Specifically, to the topic we are discussing today, the Oversight Committee held a joint hearing with the Committee on House Administration on election integrity in the District.

At that hearing, the committees examined the District government's Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, which allowed noncitizen residents to vote in D.C. local elections.

This act includes illegal immigrants and even foreign diplomats, whose interests may be opposed to the interests of Americans. This radical change to our election laws upset lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, Madam Speaker.

D.C. Mayor Bowser withheld her signature on the Act, something she had done only a handful of times in her tenure.

On February 9, 2023, 260 Members of this House voted to overturn the D.C. act through a resolution of disapproval.

In that vote, 42 House Democrats voted to block the D.C. law.

However, the bipartisan resolution of disapproval was not considered in the Democratic-controlled Senate, so D.C.'s noncitizen voting law went into effect. This, in my opinion, and the opinion of many Americans across the country, is unacceptable.

The primary factor that differentiates American citizens from noncitizens is the right to vote.

D.C. residents should be confident that their local government vote is not being diluted by noncitizen residents or illegal immigrants casting votes.

Article I of the Constitution grants Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the Nation's Capital, and the rules of the U.S. House charge the Committee on Oversight and Accountability with a duty to oversee the municipal affairs of the District of Columbia.

I urge my colleagues to support Representative Pfluger's commonsense bill to ensure that only United States citizens have the right to vote in local D.C. elections and to support the repeal of D.C.'s radical law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague has mentioned in his opening statement that 500 noncitizens are registered to vote in D.C. My colleague is clever to point this out, but I am quite sure he is also aware that it has been estimated that 50,000 noncitizens are eligible to vote. As the election cycles move forward, they will no doubt consider registering and casting their vote should we not turn this law.

My colleague also mentioned the topic of representation in our Nation's Capital. As a constitutional scholar and professor, he is well aware that our Founders envisioned our Nation's Capital would necessarily develop a robust citizenry and that those residents would enjoy unique access to the Republic's elected and appointed highest officials, equaling a form of representation that no other citizenry in any other city of sovereign States would enjoy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the author of this bill that we are considering today.

Madam Speaker, I have not heard my Democratic colleagues address the fact that even one noncitizen's vote will, in fact, dilute the votes of American citizens.

The gentlewoman mentioned Republicans' efforts to disrupt D.C. elections. Quite to the contrary, Madam Speaker. We seek to restore the integrity of D.C. elections. We stood in support of an American's right to have their vote fully counted, including, most certainly, in our Nation's Capital. When there are 50,000 potential noncitizen voters in the Nation's Capital poised to cast a vote, that is the disruption of the D.C. voting process for the American citizens of D.C., whom we do indeed care for, love, and hope to represent.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) to speak on this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), my colleague.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 192, quite simply, prohibits noncitizens from voting in D.C. local elections and repeals the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act. This is common sense.

Congress has a constitutional duty to oversee our Nation's Capital and H.R. 192 represents the exact role Congress should take in regard to the matters of the District's governance.

Under the United States Constitution, Congress is granted exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever regarding our Nation's Capital. We recognize, as my colleagues have stated, the jurisdictional authority within the municipality and the local elected officials of our Nation's Capital, but when those local elected officials take actions which are injurious to the operations of our Nation's Capital, then we have constitutional authority and, indeed, duty to respond. Hence, why in February of last year, 260 Members of this House voted to overturn the D.C. act in question as being repealed through this bill and in that vote, 42 House Democrats did, indeed, vote to overturn that D.C. law.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, my distinguished colleague has mentioned that it is already against the law for an illegal to cast a vote.

We understand this, but surely the gentleman knows that corruption is borne in the heart of man, not the mechanisms of man.

We have a duty and a responsibility as Members of this Congress to oversee the actions of the Nation's Capital City and it is our duty to mitigate against the violation of law.

We recognize that it is against the law for an illegal to cast a vote in a Federal election. We know this, but we also know that burglary is against the law, yet we have fences and gates and doors and locks. We mitigate against the actions of man, though, we know that some of those actions may be, indeed, against the law.

The existence of the statute itself does not overcome the corruption born in the heart of man. We have an obligation as a body to exercise our constitutional jurisdictional authority in the one municipality in the entire country that falls under that constitutional jurisdictional authority; that is, our Nation's Capital as the city whose laws we address today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), my friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the author of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I express my sincere gratitude to my friend and colleague, Representative Raskin, for conducting this debate in a vigorous yet respectful manner. I am certain that he will agree that this is the manner in which our Founders envisioned we may debate.

The subject of congressional interaction, exercising constitutional authority within the parameters of our Nation's Capital municipality, is a legitimate discussion. It is part of our Nation's narrative and broad debate, and this is the body, Madam Speaker, wherein such debate should take place. I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle may engage in this as we move forward in the spirit with which we have discussed and debated today.

Madam Speaker, D.C.'s noncitizen voting law does, indeed, disenfranchise American citizens. It is a dangerous policy that undermines the ability of the citizens of D.C. to have a free and fair election. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to prohibit those who are not citizens of the United States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this necessary bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, due to flight delays caused by storms in my home state of Louisiana, I was unable to be present for votes on May 14, 2024.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 196, and YEA Roll Call No. 197.

Madam Speaker, do you know why our Democratic colleagues oppose this report? Do you know why, Madam Speaker? They don't want clear, fresh, precise data provided to the American people on how many attacks uniformed law officers suffer every year.

They don't want America to know, Madam Speaker, because America

would be shocked. It is vastly underreported by rank-and-file officers like me and my brothers and sisters from sea to shining sea, men who know what it is not just to wear a little pin like here and walk around D.C. with your head held high, but to wear a shield, to wear a badge, to earn that certification every year. We know what it is to be constantly under threat of attack and physical attack, but we carry on.

We rarely report what we don't absolutely have to because of the agenda-driven persecution that officers are currently facing. Where? In Republican-run cities with Republican district attorneys that actually prosecute criminals? No, Madam Speaker. In liberal cities.

Look at the maps. It is in cities run by Democratic policies and the agendas of the Democratic mayors and Democratic DAs. Those are the cities that are eaten alive by crime in America. This is why you cannot fill the ranks of law enforcement officers across the country.

When I was a cop, we had about 800,000 uniformed officers. We were on our way to a million. We are down to about 600,000 now. Your officers are leaving service not because of the threats that we have historically faced but because of the threats that we continue to face for physical danger on the streets and the very significant possibility, even probability in some municipalities, that the actions of that law enforcement officer are going to be treated more harshly than the criminal and violent attacks that the officer both faces and protects his community from.

To think that my colleagues across the aisle would oppose a bill that mandates the Department of Justice provide accurate data to the American people about how many violent attacks uniformed officers face across the country, my God, you can barely get your head wrapped around that.

Of course, this body that is supposed to represent we the people should endeavor to provide the American people with accurate, contemporary data regarding such things.

Madam Speaker, I am honored to support my colleague's bill, and I encourage Representatives on both sides of the aisle to join us in support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution that I have authored and introduced and will be considered on the House floor.

I am going to calmly suggest my colleagues across the aisle reassess their position on this resolution because they are speaking of Republican majorities walking away from what they allege is a strong immigration reform and border security bill. That bill was not the border security bill that we passed through this House, H.R. 2, which was the strongest legislative measure in the history of Congress. It has been walked away from by the Democrat-controlled Senate. H.R. 2 is condemned by your President, President Biden.

You know who also did not universally like H.R. 2, Madam Speaker? The cartels. My colleagues across the aisle may want to wonder, how do you find yourselves aligned with the cartels? Oh, let us review.

Since day one of this administration, since January of 2021, the policies of our executive branch were flipped to be more receptive to illegal immigration, and in doing so, more aligned with the

cartels' operations of trafficking human beings and drugs into our country.

Anyone with two brain cells that may occasionally bump into each other would realize that if you soften your existing law enforcement on illegal immigration when on the other side of the border the territory is 100 percent controlled by criminal cartels who are trafficking two things, human beings and drugs, what do you think might happen? Of course, you are going to have a drastic increase in trafficked human beings and drugs, which is exactly where we are.

Republicans took action in the first few months that we had majority control. We went through exhaustive legislative measures to battle through the language of H.R. 2. We went through an 18-hour markup in the Homeland Security Committee, my committee. We brought H.R. 2 to the floor, and it was passed with all Republicans supporting that bill. It went to the Senate, and there it remains gathering dust, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, we had countless efforts to communicate with our colleagues in the Senate, encouraging them: Take up the bill. If you disagree with H.R. 2, then, by all means, debate and change, amend and pass your version, and send it back to the House.

When we go to conference, that is the way things work, but that is not the way it happened in the Senate. The Democrat-controlled Senate killed H.R. 2 which was a legitimate and strong response to the invasion that we have faced at our southern border.

My resolution simply acknowledges and condemns the loss of our sovereign control at the southern border and the impact that this wave upon human wave of misery, drugs, and human trafficking has brought upon our country and the impact upon local and State law enforcement who has had to bear the full brunt of the Biden administration policies, Madam Speaker.

These are policies that can be flipped very quickly.

You put me in charge of our border policy, and you will find out what happens with cartel operations. They are going to have to take some of those trillions of dollars they stole from us trafficking in the misery of human beings who have been caught up in their pipeline and sold their horrible tale of coming to America and prospering. They were sold a story by the cartels, and they were caught up in that trafficking.

How is that trafficking allowed?

It is because the doors were opened, and the borders were opened. By what? By lack of money?

No. It was by change in policy from the executive branch.

Local and State law enforcement, Madam Speaker, has had to deal with that. Those men and women have suffered. Those departments have suffered. They have been forced into crisis not by their own communities where they live and serve, but by executive policies of this Federal Government.

My resolution is not meaningless, I say to my colleague across the aisle. It is quite the opposite. It acknowledges the service and sacrifice of the men and women who wear a badge at the local and State levels across our country who have been horribly impacted by the Biden administration policies at our southern border which have brought generational trauma upon our country and an era of misery we may never forget.

I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak for this amount of time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Brenntag for 150 years of service as a market leader in chemical and ingredients distribution.

Founded in 1874, Brenntag offers a comprehensive portfolio of chemicals and ingredients, market solutions, applications, and regulatory know-how for a wide range of industries. The company has a global footprint, operating in over 70 countries with more than 17,500 employees. This includes sites in the South Louisiana communities of Abbeville, Broussard, and Maurice.

Last year, I toured Brenntag's new cutting-edge facility in Maurice, Louisiana, and participated in a town hall meeting with employees. I enjoyed the opportunity to visit with the men and women of Brenntag and see firsthand the important work being carried out at facilities in South Louisiana.

The chemicals industry is essential to modern society. The industry's contributions can be found in every aspect of our lives--our clothing, our electronics, household goods, and many other daily products. While many Americans take this for granted, we should not forget the men and women who keep our supply chains running and make everyday life possible.

Brenntag's employees, like those I met in Maurice, are responsible for the company's status as an industry leader in quality, safety, and innovation. Their hard work is critical to America's continued success and economic prosperity.

On behalf of Louisiana's 3rd District, I commend Brenntag on its 150th anniversary. I offer my gratitude to Brenntag's employees, and I thank them for the vital part they play in America's economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor five members of the Lafayette Police Department (LPD) for heroic actions in the line of duty.

For their united display of valor, Corporal Adam Bradford, Corporal Maverick Morvant, Officer Hali Bradford, Officer Alan Cortez, and Officer Raynard Ford have earned their designation as 2024 recipients of the National Association of Police Organizations' ``TOP COP'' award.

In the early morning of August 5, 2023, LPD Officers Bradford, Cortez, and Ford responded to a ``Disturbance in Progress'' call. As they arrived on scene, the officers heard a woman cry for help from within the residence. While attempting entry, the perpetrator forced the door shut. Officer Ford promptly breached the door, discovering a young woman and two children, who the officers quickly evacuated. The perpetrator, who had retreated deeper into the residence, reappeared and opened fire on the officers without warning. Officer Bradford was targeted by the perpetrator, incurring injuries that left her paralyzed from the waist-down. Officers Cortez and Ford immediately returned fire with their service weapons, striking the perpetrator multiple times. Meanwhile, Officer Cortez stepped forward to draw fire from Officer Bradford, sustaining gunshot wounds in the process.

While bleeding heavily and fighting to remain conscious, Officer Bradford dutifully withdrew from the line of fire, drew her service weapon, and communicated her condition to her colleagues. Still under fire, Officer Ford left cover and rushed to Officer Bradford's aid, dragging her further to safety. LPD Corporal Bradford and Corporal Morvant then arrived on scene, assuming aid of Officer Bradford. With a determination that she could not wait for an ambulance, they placed Officer Bradford in a service vehicle. As Corporal Morvant drove, Corporal Bradford administered first aid. They reached a nearby hospital in just three minutes, where she underwent lifesaving surgery.

This lifesaving outcome, despite extraordinarily adverse circumstances, is a credit to the heroism, professionalism, and teamwork of these five police officers. Scripture tells us, ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' Without hesitation, these officers demonstrated such a commitment, in defense of our community and one other. This is emblematic of the very finest of the Thin Blue Line.

On behalf of Louisiana's 3rd District, I ask the blessings of our Lord upon Corporal Bradford, Corporal Morvant, Officer Bradford, Officer Cortez, and Officer Ford for their service and sacrifice. God bless them one and all.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland stated that this bill is perhaps unconstitutional. Under our Constitution, he has every right to lead an article III challenge to the constitutionality of this bill, which I expect that they will. My Democrat colleagues love to sue Americans and pursue legislation through the courts.

This is actual legislation presented by conservative Republicans to correct a horrible wrong. I rise in support of H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act.

While this bill will continue to count every person in the United States, it adds a simple question to the Census: Are you a United States citizen?

While the decennial Census must count every person in the United States, which I agree with, Mr. Speaker, the problem is the level of illegal persons that now live in our country because of President Biden's failures at the southern border.

It took 240 years to accumulate 30 million illegals living in the United States. In 4 short years, President Biden, under his policies, will have added 15 million. We are talking about 45 million illegal persons living in the United States. That is the equivalent to 60 congressional seats.

Now, most of those illegal aliens will be drawn to live primarily in sanctuary states and cities. This thwarts the fair representation of American citizens in the House of Representatives, foundationally altering our representative Republic.

This important piece of legislation enables us to fairly and accurately apportion congressional districts based upon equal representation of American citizens.

I urge my colleagues to seek the truth and to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Myers family of Lafayette, this year's University of Louisiana at Lafayette (ULL) Alumni Association Spring Gala honorees.

Mr. Keith Myers and Mrs. Ginger Myers have served as health care industry leaders for decades. In 1994, they co-founded LHC Group in order to address the health care needs of Lafayette's aging rural community. The Myers grew a freestanding single home health agency into a publicly traded company of almost 30,000 employees, now operating in 38 states and the District of Columbia. LHC Group's success, along with its significant mission, must be attributed to the Myers' own virtue.

As LHC Group's first nurse, Mrs. Myers established the company's service-based culture. She has worked in a range of nursing and administrative roles in St. Landry Parish; served on LHC Group's board of directors; and helped to establish one of Louisiana's first rural health clinics. She was chair of the Opelousas Woman's Club board; a committee member for the St. Landry/Evangeline American Heart Association Heart Gala; and on the executive committee for Go Red for Women, an American Heart Association fundraiser.

For his part, Mr. Myers served as LHC Group's chairman and chief executive officer from the company's inception, up to its merger with Optum. He is currently senior adviser for Optum and chairman and CEO emeritus for LHC Group. Mr. Myers is a co-founder, board member, and current chairman of the Partnership for Quality Home Healthcare in Washington, D.C. He is also a co-founder and former board member of the Alliance for Home Health Quality and Innovation. He has served as a CEO member of both the Healthcare Leadership Council and the American Hospital Association.

Despite LHC Group's national expansion, the Myers have maintained their dedication to South Louisiana. LHC Group's headquarters are still firmly rooted in Lafayette. The Myers' longstanding commitment to health care and community is exemplified by LHC Group's recent commitment of $20 million, over 10 years, to ULL's College of Nursing & Health Sciences. This investment will bring endowments, scholarships, research initiatives and capital enhancements for nursing and health sciences.

On behalf of Louisiana's 3rd District, I commend Keith and Ginger Myers for their generous work, and I thank them for their devotion to South Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding. I appreciate the commentary of my friend and colleague, the ranking member of the Oversight and Accountability Committee, Representative Raskin.

It may interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that Representative Raskin and I have worked in the spirit of mutual respect and camaraderie for 8 years now. We have enjoyed many vigorous debates in this body, and I find it encouraging that he has risen enthusiastically now twice in support of my bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7528, the Comment Integrity and Management Act. This bill is essential in the digital age where our constituents engage with us more and more through electronic means. It seeks to safeguard citizens' First Amendment right to participate in the Federal rulemaking process.

This participation includes the invaluable process of submitting public comments on proposed Federal rules and regulations, comments that help shape the very fabric of our government.

With the advent of digital technology and the rise of artificial intelligence being of increasing import, the channels for such participation have expanded providing broader access but also introducing new challenges. These challenges include computer-generated comments which can obscure genuine public input and hinder our agencies' ability to gauge public sentiment effectively.

The cornerstone of this bill is its commitment to ensuring that every comment submitted by electronic means comes from a real person, not an automated program. By requiring human verification, we are taking a significant step towards preserving the authenticity of public input.

Furthermore, the Comment Integrity and Management Act equips our agencies with the flexibility and tools necessary to efficiently manage the comments they receive. This includes the authority to identify and process computer-generated and mass comments, ensuring that they are handled transparently and effectively.

Additionally, the legislation directs the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance on best practices for managing electronic comments and mandates a report for the United States Government Accountability Office on the prevalence and impact of computer- generated comments.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of adapting our processes to the realities of the 21st century. It is imperative that we ensure every American is heard and that genuine public input is not drowned out by the noise of automation.

This bill represents a good government approach to embracing technological advancements while safeguarding the principles of public participation and transparency in the rulemaking process.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to salute the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana for making the administrative rulemaking process up-to-date, rapid, transparent, and effective for all of us so we can keep it going.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time. I had prepared remarks, but let me just speak from my heart.

It is a beautiful gesture that this body can name a post office after our friend and colleague, Luke Letlow, in honor of his service and his dedication to his State and his community and his country, to children of God across the world.

Luke was a very special man. It is a gesture to the American families from sea to shining sea, which has suffered loss, including my own.

Today, we stand in support of the love of family, and we extend the heart

of our Nation by naming one of our oldest institutions, a microcosm of what America is, the Postal Service.

To name a post office after Luke is to honor not just his family and his wife, our colleague, Julia, but it is to honor all American families.

I thank my brothers and sisters of this august body for allowing this moment where we cherish what it is to be an American, to serve our country and our fellow man, to be part of a family, and to remember those that we have lost.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, as the underlying bill was being developed, those of us on both sides of the aisle were concerned about constitutional protections, the preservation of our representative Republic, and the core principles of individual rights, liberties, freedoms, and privacies that our representative Republic relies upon and our citizenry anticipates and expects, rightfully so, that their Congress shall protect.

As the underlying bill was being developed, there were concerns communicated from law enforcement and citizens across the country, at the local level especially, and there began an effort, a very good- faith effort, across the spectrum politically here in this body to address those concerns. That is what my amendment does.

The Fourth Amendment specifically calls for probable cause to be necessary for a warrant particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

My amendment seeks to address the concerns of law enforcement. We have sworn an oath to protect our Constitution, but we are bound by duty to protect the communities that we serve. Therefore, legitimate investigations are required. Consistent with that ethic, I propose my amendment to not include as a covered record the following items to ensure that law enforcement has the clarity to know that they will continue to have the tools they need to succeed:

Records made available to the general public on social media. This remains available to law enforcement, as clarified by my amendment.

Records made lawfully available through government records or widely distributed media. This remains available to local law enforcement and is clarified in my amendment.

Records wherein consent has been given by the citizen or the business for the government to access for a background check. This remains undisturbed and is clarified by my amendment.

Records generated by public or private ALPRs, automated license plate recognition systems. This is a very important consideration that law enforcement was concerned about. Again, my amendment clarifies and addresses the fact that this right for legitimate investigation through ALPR remains undisturbed.

I encourage full support of my amendment from my colleagues.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls), my friend and colleague of the Thin Blue Line.

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

Mr. Chair, 15 seconds, for a gentleman from Louisiana, is just about enough time to say thank you.

Mr. Chair, I encourage support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Alvin Joseph Picard, a son of South Louisiana who by nature of his service in World War II has been recognized with the Congressional Gold Medal--the highest expression of national appreciation through Congress.

Mr. Picard was a native of Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, born on December 9, 1919. He grew up amid the Depression and reached adulthood at a time of national crisis. When America entered the Second World War, Mr. Picard enlisted in the United States Army. He held the rank of Technician Fifth Grade with Signal Company of the 23rd Headquarters Special Troops. This top-secret unit is now known fondly as the ``Ghost Army.'' The 1,100-man unit was assigned a critical task: to mask and misrepresent the whereabouts, trajectory, and strength of Allied forces in Nazi-occupied France.

Operating in the European theater, the Ghost Army was engaged in battlefield operations beginning in June of 1944. The unit's deception strategies were critical to many Allied victories across Europe, including the D-Day landings. As a Cryptographic Technician in Signal Company, Mr. Picard employed ``spoof radio'' to confuse Axis forces and conceal the movements of other Allied troops. His efforts and those of others in the Ghost Army saved countless American lives.

Thirty years after the war, a U.S. Army report noted: ``rarely, if ever, has there existed a group of such few men, which had so great an influence on the outcome of a major military campaign.'' While aiding the victory in Europe, the Ghost Army also laid the foundation for modern defense strategies, on which our national security depends. As we confront present threats in psychological, cyber, and information warfare, the legacy of the Ghost Army and soldiers like Mr. Picard endures.

Although the Congressional Gold Medal reaches Mr. Picard posthumously, he is survived by a grateful family, community, and country. On behalf of Louisiana's 3rd District, I thank Mr. Picard for his service. May God bless his family and his Veteran Brothers of the Ghost Army.