Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, you will hear from advocates of Court expansion that the Court is a mere rubber stamp for Trump. This is a Court that defied Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, to deport people without a hearing, to send troops to Chicago, to use emergency powers to impose tariffs, and to revoke birthright citizenship by executive order.

Some of my colleagues on both sides may be surprised that I just uttered those words, but those are not my words. Those are the words of three of my former colleagues, three former State Democratic attorneys general, who strongly support the Keep Nine Amendment and disagree with my friends on the other side: Chris Gorman from Kentucky, Steve Rosenthal, and Tony Troy from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that until this Congress, this was a bipartisan issue. It wasn't a Republican issue. It wasn't a Democratic issue.

Back when I served my State as attorney general in 2020, I wrote to the then-sponsors of this measure in this body and expressed my support for it, and it was a Republican from Virginia and a Democrat from Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I include both of these statements and letters in the Record at this point.

State of Kansas,

Office of the Attorney General,

Topeka, KS, October 16, 2020.

Hon. Collin Peterson,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Denver Riggleman,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressmen Peterson and Riggleman: I write in support

of your proposed House Joint Resolution 95, which proposes to

amend our United States Constitution to fix at nine the

number of Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States.

I commend you for your bipartisan leadership on this matter,

the importance of which is apparent in light of recent calls

for Congress to ``pack the court'' by amending statutes to

add additional justices if the perceived balance among

current justices tips in a manner disfavored by some.

Your proposed amendment is simple and self-explanatory. It

would add the following thirteen words to our Constitution:

``The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of

nine justices.'' If proposed by the requisite two-third

majority of both houses of Congress and timely ratified by

three-fourths of the state legislatures, this amendment would

remove from the Congress authority to increase or decrease

the number of justices on the Supreme Court in response to

political pressures. The passions of the moment must not be

allowed to undermine the independence of our Supreme Court.

The need could not be greater. Twice in the past century--

once in 1937 and again today--cries to ``pack the court'' by

adding more justices for the purpose of diluting the

influence of those already seated have risen to the fore of

our nation's public discussion. The intent and effect of

those cries have been to challenge the Supreme Court's

independence in exercising judgment in cases and

controversies before it. For the past 150 years, no other

justification or need for altering the number of justices has

gained attention, demonstrating that fixing the number of

justices at nine, as is currently the case, is

administratively and legally suitable. As the late Justice

Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously said just over a year ago,

``Nine seems to be a good number.''

Our Constitution already provides mechanisms for public and

political considerations to influence the composition of the

Supreme Court over time--namely, the processes by which

Americans elect a President and United States Senators and by

which the President, with the advice and consent of the

Senate, appoints justices when vacancies arise. Other

provisions of our Constitution, such as the granting of

lifetime tenure to justices during good behavior, are

designed to ensure the independence of the judiciary. So too

is your proposal.

By removing from Congress the ability to pack the court

with additional justices in response to political pressures--

regardless of whether those pressures come from the political

left, the political right, or elsewhere--your proposed

amendment would reinforce our long and proud American

tradition of an independent judiciary that, as Alexander

Hamilton put it in Federalist 78, ``ha[s] neither FORCE nor

WILL, but merely judgment.'' I commend you for bringing this

measure forward and for your bipartisan cooperation in

proposing it. I hope the House of Representatives and the

Senate will see fit to advance it for consideration by the

state legislatures so the American people, through the

constitutional amendment process, can decide for themselves

whether threats of court packing should remain an option

available to Congress. I, for one, think it should not.

If I may be of assistance in your efforts, please let me

know.

Sincerely,

Derek Schmidt,

Kansas Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker, I have long supported the Keep Nine Amendment because I think it is the right thing to do for our Republic.

As has been stated here many times in today's somewhat jovial but I think very serious debate, turning the Supreme Court into a political football, whose size is expanded first by Republicans, then by Democrats, whoever has the political will and whoever is aggrieved at the moment will undermine that Court's ability to perform its unique and critical constitutional function.

For all of the distress that my friends on the other side have right now in their complaints about the Court, I assure this body those will be magnified manyfold if we allow ourselves to get into a bidding war over the size of the institution across the street.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat there seven times at counsel table. I have argued three causes. I have second-chaired four others--

I will tell you that sometimes I like how the court rules, behaves, and questions. Sometimes I don't like it. I have been on the winning end. I have been on the losing end, but neither of those is a justification to attack the institution itself.

My friend asks why nine and why would we give up our power? And the answer to that is we are not giving up our power because it is not within our power to do so. We are asking the people of this country, through the process that the Constitution establishes, whether they want to restrict our power and protect their Court at nine.

We should say ``yes,'' and I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 1.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 32) to clarify where court may be held for certain district courts in Texas and California.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on S. 32.

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

Mr. Speaker, local access to Federal courts is critical to ensuring the rights of the people are protected.

Under current law, the Southern District of Texas is divided into seven districts. The Houston Division comprises 13 counties but is only authorized to hold court in Houston. The Southern District of California comprises two counties, and the Court is only authorized to be held in the city of San Diego. Both of these judicial districts have experienced significant population growth in recent years, and their organization means that far too many Americans have to travel long distances for their day in court.

In both regions, Americans may have to travel as far as 100 miles or more just to reach the Federal courthouse. These distances place an unnecessary burden on those who need to access both the civil and criminal justice systems. I might say, Mr. Speaker, while I strongly support this legislation, 100 miles isn't very far to get to the Federal courthouse when you live in parts of my home State of Kansas.

The Local Access to Courts Act would help to alleviate the burden by adding an additional place in both judicial districts where the Southern District of Texas and the Southern District of California may hold court.

In the Southern District of Texas, S. 32 would add College Station to the list of places where court may be held. In the Southern District of California, this bill would add El Centro to the list of places where court may be held.

S. 32 would increase accessibility to our Federal courts for victims, jurors, civil parties, counsel, and the general public by sparing them from the burden of a multihour drive just to get to the nearest Federal courthouse.

S. 32 passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and I am glad to see that same bipartisan support in the House. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation can make a positive difference for people accessing justice in southern California and in south Texas, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1869) to strengthen the Department of Justices enforcement against trade-related crimes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1869.

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

Mr. Speaker, U.S. trade policy is a vital tool to protect American businesses and workers, ensure American competitiveness, and achieve our foreign policy objectives. However, smart trade policy, one that puts American workers and businesses first, means nothing if we cannot enforce it.

Today, criminal enterprises and bad actors, predominantly based in China, are breaking U.S. trade laws with impunity. This activity is showing up in three ways: financial fraud, counterfeiting, and forced labor.

Over the past decade, law enforcement has identified hundreds of instances of trade fraud, most of which originated in China. Not only has that fraud deprived us of antidumping and countervailing duties, but it has seriously undermined our trade policy.

In just one year, in FY 2024, U.S. authorities seized over $5.4 billion in counterfeit goods, with China accounting for more than 75 percent of those seizures. Those seizures reflect billions of dollars stolen from U.S. businesses and workers, which undermines the trade policies designed to protect them.

In the past 4 years, law enforcement has identified almost $1 billion in goods mined, produced, or manufactured, wholly or in part, in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. These goods carry significant risk of having been produced by forced labor and are illegal to import into the United States.

We must do more to punish the criminals who are breaking our trade laws and inflicting serious harm to our economy to the tune of billions of dollars every year.

Securing the integrity of our trade is how we stop the bleeding and put American workers and families first. H.R. 1869 will set up the structure needed at the Department of Justice to go after criminals who perpetrate trade crimes.

These crimes include trade fraud, tariff and duty evasion, illegal smuggling, trade-based money laundering, trafficking in counterfeit goods, and more.

This bill will give DOJ's criminal division the resources to dedicate specialized personnel to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes.

The importance of these issues to all Americans is clear from the broad bipartisan group of Members sponsoring this bill.

I thank all of the sponsors for their hard work and particularly the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, which played a vital and significant role in drafting and advancing this legislation.

I also thank the members of the Judiciary Committee for their bipartisan efforts on this bill. We may have significant policy differences on the Judiciary Committee, but I am glad we can work across party lines to advance trade policies that protect Americans.

I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1869, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on my side. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to support H.R. 1869, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4465) to amend chapters 4, 10, and 131 of title 5, United States Code, as necessary to keep those chapters current and to correct related technical errors.

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.R. 4465.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4465 makes technical corrections and updates to the United States Code. The bill was prepared for the Judiciary Committee by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, a nonpartisan office of the House of Representatives charged with maintaining the official United States Code.

In 2022, Congress enacted a positive law restatement of certain laws that were previously contained in the appendix to title 5 of the code. That restatement had a cutoff date of October 19, 2021, meaning that changes to the affected laws made after that date and before the enactment of the 2022 restatement were not included in the restatement.

Congress enacted several changes to title 5 between the 2021 cutoff date and the enactment of the 2022 restatement. H.R. 4465 accounts for these changes by updating the 2022 restatement to include them.

This bill does not change the substantive meaning of any laws on the books. It is simply about Congress finishing its work and incorporating these changes into title 5. Adopting this bill today will help ensure that the code is up to date, accurate, and accessible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4465, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5210) to make technical amendments to update statutory references to certain provisions classified to title 2, United States Code, title 50, United States Code, and title 52, United States Code, and to correct related technical errors.

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.R. 5210.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5210 makes technical corrections and updates to the United States Code. The bill was prepared for the Judiciary Committee by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, a nonpartisan office of the House of Representatives charged with maintaining the official United States Code.

H.R. 5210 makes technical amendments to update statutory references to certain provisions classified to title 2, chapters 44 through 47; of title 50; and of title 52 of the code.

These provisions were moved to their present locations in the code in order to improve the organization and readability of the code. Moving these provisions did not change the substantive meaning of any of them. They were simply moved from one place in the code to another. When updating statutory references to these provisions, some technical errors were also identified, which this bill corrects, as well.

This bill does not change the meaning of these provisions nor the provisions that reference them. It simply updates references to these provisions to ensure that they are correct. Adopting this bill today will help ensure that the code is up to date, accurate, and accessible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague. I suspect his bluebooking skills were extraordinary back in the day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support H.R. 5210, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5185) to make improvements in the enactment of title 41, United States Code, into a positive law title and to improve the Code.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5185.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5185 was prepared for the Judiciary Committee by the Office of Law Revision Counsel, a nonpartisan office of the House of Representatives charged with maintaining the official United States Code.

In 2011, Congress enacted a positive law restatement of title 41, which pertains to public contracts. After Congress enacts a positive law restatement of a title of the code, a follow-up bill is sometimes necessary to correct technical errors, make conforming amendments, and incorporate additional provisions.

H.R. 5185 is such a follow-up bill.

This bill does not change the substantive meaning of any law on the books today. It simply helps ensure that the code is up to date, accurate, and accessible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support H.R. 5185, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5174) to make revisions in title 51, United States Code, as necessary to keep the title current, and to make technical amendments to improve the United States Code.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5174.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5174 is a ministerial bill that makes technical corrections and updates to the United States Code.

This bill was prepared for the Judiciary Committee by the Office of Law Revision Counsel, a nonpartisan office of the House of Representatives charged with maintaining the official United States Code.

In 2010, Congress enacted a positive law restatement of title 51, which pertains to national and commercial space programs.

Subsequent to the enactment of this restatement, additional laws pertaining to title 51 were enacted.

H.R. 5174 incorporates these additional laws into title 51. This bill does not change the substantive meaning of any law on the books today. It simply helps ensure that the code is up to date, accurate, and accessible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support H.R. 5174, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5182) to make improvements in the enactment of title 54, United States Code, into a positive law title and to correct related technical errors, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5182.

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

Mr. Speaker, unsurprisingly, H.R. 5182 makes technical corrections and updates to the United States Code.

This bill was prepared for the Judiciary Committee by the Office of Law Revision Counsel, a nonpartisan office of the House of Representatives charged with maintaining the official United States Code.

In 2014, Congress enacted a positive law restatement of title 54, which pertains to the National Park Service and related programs.

After Congress enacts a positive law restatement of a title of the code, a follow-up bill is sometimes necessary to correct technical errors, make conforming amendments, and incorporate additional provisions.

H.R. 5182 is such a follow-up bill. The bill does not change the substantive meaning of any law on the books today. It simply helps ensure that the code is up to date, accurate, and accessible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support H.R. 5182, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this bill forward and for his leadership. I also thank my colleague from Michigan (Ms. Scholten). It has been a pleasure to work with her on this bipartisan, commonsense piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I add my voice to those advocating in support of the Main Street Competes Act. Our bill addresses the concerns that small businesses have limited visibility into how Federal antitrust enforcement efforts may affect their ability to compete.

While large mergers and anticompetitive practices can disadvantage small firms, there is currently no consistent governmentwide assessment of how enforcement actions by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission may affect small business competitiveness or how such agencies respond to small business complaints.

To address this gap, the Main Street Competes Act requires regular reporting and analysis of antitrust enforcement related to small businesses. It directs the two enforcement agencies to submit those biennial reports to the SBA Office of Advocacy, detailing their antitrust work.

That office, in turn, is positioned to take that information and data and report and recommend to Congress steps that may be prudent for our consideration in increasing the competitiveness of small businesses in the marketplace.

By better understanding how antitrust enforcement affects small businesses, Congress can make more informed policy decisions to promote competition, prevent harmful market consolidation, and ensure small businesses have a fair opportunity to grow.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, a free-market economy requires that players compete in good faith and have an opportunity to be at the table when the competition occurs. Small businesses are where ideas come from. They are the lifeblood of our communities.

This bill makes sure that policymakers and antitrust enforcers are taking those facts into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work to make this happen, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a devoted public servant, educator, and proud Kansan, my friend, Bob Tomlinson, who passed away in February 2025 at his home in Kansas.

Bob Tomlinson lived a life defined by service to others. Whether in the classroom, the Kansas Statehouse, or around the family dinner table, Bob believed deeply in showing up for people, listening carefully, and leaving every place a little better than he found it.

From an early age, Bob demonstrated a passion for public service and civic engagement. In fact, his family recalls that his first campaign began in junior high school when he ran for student council. That sense of responsibility to contribute, to lead, and to serve never left him.

As a young man, Bob attended Boys State, worked with Republican U.S. Senator Bob Dole and Democratic State Senator Anthony Hensley, and built a bipartisan spirit that would become a hallmark of his public life. Bob understood that public service was never about headlines or partisanship. It was about people, especially those who felt unheard or overlooked.

Bob earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Kansas and later a master's degree from Baker University. He went on to spend nearly two decades working in education, serving as a social studies teacher and counselor at the Shawnee Mission School District alternative education program at Horizons High School. Those who knew Bob understood that he had a special heart for students who needed extra care, extra patience, and someone who believed in them when much of the world often did not.

Bob did not simply teach history. He taught young people that their lives mattered and that they could still shape their own futures.

Bob's commitment to his community naturally led him into elected office. He served on the Roeland Park City Council before representing Kansas' 24th House District in the Kansas State House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003. During his decade in the legislature, Bob earned respect on both sides of the aisle for his thoughtful approach, his kindness, and his ability to build genuine friendships across political differences.

He later served as assistant insurance commissioner for the State of Kansas from 2003 to 2012, continuing a

career centered on protecting and serving Kansans.

If you knew Bob, you knew there was always a joke. There was always a story. In every situation, he could find a way to lighten the mood and make people feel at ease. He never met a stranger who would not later become a friend.

Bob loved Kansas deeply. He traveled to every corner of the State multiple times during his years in public service. He cared about rural communities, small towns, working families, and the people whose voices too often went unheard. He believed government worked best when leaders listened first.

However, of all the titles Bob carried, the title he treasured most was ``family man.'' Bob and his beloved wife, Carole, shared 38 years of marriage. Together, they raised two sons, Phillip and Christopher, and later welcomed a granddaughter, Audrey, who brought Bob enormous joy.

Family traditions mattered to Bob. Every summer, the Tomlinsons would pack up and travel together to visit historic sites and State capitals across America. Thanks to Bob's love of history and their travel, his sons can say they visited 48 State capitals and our Nation's Capital here in Washington. Those trips reflected Bob's belief that learning never stops and that the best memories are made together.

While Bob could discuss history, public policy, or baseball with anyone, his granddaughter, Audrey, may have known him best for yet another talent entirely: his unforgettable Donald Duck impression, which he happily performed for hours just to make her laugh.

That was Bob Tomlinson. He was accomplished but humble, serious about service but never about himself, a man whose greatest joy came not from recognition but from bringing joy to others.

On behalf of so many people in Kansas and of this U.S. House of Representatives, I extend my deepest condolences to Carole, Phillip, Chris, Megan, Audrey, and the entire Tomlinson family. May they find comfort in knowing that Bob's life made a lasting difference in the lives of so many others. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the House last week approved the FY27 agriculture appropriations bill, the second FY27 appropriations bill brought to the floor under regular order.

The bill we passed contained the PURR Act, which is a bill I have championed to modernize the labeling requirements of pet and animal food.

The Kansas Second District is the pet and animal food capital of America, employing nearly 20,000 people in all aspects of the industry, from nutrition research and development to production.

Overall, the animal feed and pet food industries annually contribute nearly $100 billion in value to the U.S. economy and more than 750,000 jobs.

Modernizing the labeling requirements on these products will improve efficiency and reduce compliance costs for pet food manufacturers. It will strengthen the industry. This will have a direct benefit for the affordability of pet food for consumers and animal feed for our farmers and ranchers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Appropriations Committee for including this important measure from my district in the bill. I look forward to the Senate advancing it and the President signing it into law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Utah for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Police Week to honor the brave men and women in law enforcement who put on the badge every day and stand between safety and danger.

Across Kansas and across our Nation, law enforcement officers answer the calls most of us hope we will never have to make. They run toward danger when others are running away. They work long nights, miss holidays, and experience difficult moments that often go unseen or unrecognized.

Their service demands courage, sacrifice, and an unwavering commitment to protecting their communities.

This week, we especially remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Sadly, last year, we lost four heroes from the State of Kansas.

We honor Officer Scott Heimann of the Hays Police Department in Hays, Kansas. Officer Heimann was a devoted public servant who faithfully protected his community with professionalism and integrity.

We remember Officer Hunter Simoncic of the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department. Officer Simoncic dedicated his life to serving others, and his courage and commitment will not be forgotten.

We recognize Deputy Brandon Gaede of the Phillips County Sheriff's Office. Deputy Gaede answered the call to serve rural Kansans with dedication and selflessness, and we remain grateful for his service and sacrifice.

We remember Deputy Elijah Ming of the Wyandotte County Sheriff's Office. Deputy Ming's commitment to duty and to protecting others reflected the very best of Kansas law enforcement.

These officers were sons, friends, colleagues, neighbors, and public servants. Behind every badge is a human being who chose a life of sacrifice. Behind every fallen officer is a family whose sacrifice continues long after the headlines have faded.

During National Police Week, we honor not only those we have lost but also every officer who continues to serve. We thank them for their courage, their professionalism, and their steadfast commitment to keeping our communities safe.

To the families of our fallen officers, your loved ones will not be forgotten. Their legacy lives on in the communities they protected, in the officers they served with, and in the grateful hearts of the people of Kansas and of our great country.

May God bless the memory of these fallen heroes and protect all who wear the badge, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8352) to authorize peace officer standards and training agencies to access criminal history records, and for other purposes, as amended.

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.R. 8352.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8352 is a commonsense and bipartisan bill that fixes a critical flaw in the Federal statute.

State peace officer standards and training agencies, or POSTs, are responsible for certifying, licensing, and overseeing law enforcement officers in their respective jurisdictions. All 50 States have some form of a POST agency, although they go by different names.

More than 50,000 individuals apply each year for law enforcement positions across the United States, and local, county, State, and Tribal agencies submit these applicants to their respective State POST agencies for certification.

It is our expectation that each of those men and women would be a person of integrity and capable of upholding the position of public trust, but we shouldn't just take an applicant's word for it. As President Reagan might have said: ``Trust, but verify.''

Applicants voluntarily consent in writing to these background checks when applying for employment to perform the duties of a law enforcement officer, but current Federal law does not give POST agencies full access to criminal history records contained within the FBI's CJIS system. This can result in POST agencies having incomplete records when deciding whether to certify a candidate for employment as law enforcement.

This unnecessary barrier has resulted in candidates with disqualifying convictions slipping through the cracks.

My own State of Kansas is currently dealing with an issue of an officer with a disqualifying conviction who was hired by an agency without performing the mandatory background criminal history check. Since Kansas C-POST does not have the authority to run its own criminal histories, it has to rely on the hiring agency's verification that the applicant has met all the minimum requirements. That officer has been working for more than 18 months with a disqualifying conviction.

Giving POST agencies this access is a commonsense step that strengthens accountability and helps keep communities safe by preventing individuals with disqualifying criminal history records from entering or remaining in the profession.

I thank Chairman Jordan and my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee for unanimously supporting this bill during our committee markup last month. I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), for her leadership in making this a bipartisan partnership and effort, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, this week across America we honor the brave men and women in law enforcement who work every day to protect and serve the American public. In particular, we honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice, whom we recognized in a resolution on this floor just a few minutes ago.

A few weeks ago, I was honored to speak to the 355th Basic Training Class of the Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center which provides basic training and continuation education for most of the law enforcement officers in our State.

The auditorium at the training center where the graduation ceremony is held is appropriately named Integrity Auditorium. Each graduate is presented with a challenge coin that bears the phrase: ``Integrity is the basis for community trust.''

This bill is about ensuring that all law enforcement officers across our country are held to that standard of integrity and that disqualifying prior criminal convictions are properly disclosed to the appropriate State licensing agencies.

I want to thank the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training for bringing this issue to our attention. I want to thank my colleague and friend Ms. Ross of North Carolina for joining me in introducing this important bipartisan bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, No. 43, which would direct the secretaries of agriculture and health and human services to enter into a memorandum of understanding to conduct collaborative research related to increasing the domestic production of crops that can be used to produce natural food colors. With growing interest among consumers in foods containing no synthetic food dyes, the demand for natural alternatives is increasing. Currently, the United States lacks domestic production of natural food dyes, requiring these dyes to be sourced from overseas.

This increased demand for natural food colors presents an opportunity for American agriculture to step into the gap and grow the crops necessary to produce the brightly colored foods that so many of us enjoy. Working together, under the direction of my amendment, USDA and HHS will work to identify the barriers that exist to producing these crops domestically and processing them into the natural dyes that can be used by American food companies.

I am grateful to Chairman Thompson and the Agriculture Committee staff for working with me on this amendment and for including it in the en bloc amendment. I am also grateful to the industry groups who worked with us on this issue. I include in the Record a letter of support for my amendment signed by seven industry groups.

Mr. Chair, thank you for your consideration. I urge the adoption of my amendment as part of the en bloc package, and passage of the long- overdue Farm Bill.

April 28, 2026.

Hon. Derek Schmidt,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Schmidt: As representatives of food and

ingredient manufacturers and suppliers, we write to share our

support for your Amendment #204 to H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food,

and National Security Act of 2026, which would direct the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS) to enter into a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) to coordinate activities to enhance the

capacity of domestic producers to increase production of

crops used in naturally derived food and beverage colorants.

The U.S. food industry is currently managing a complex,

system-wide shift in how color ingredients are sourced,

produced, and incorporated into finished products. This

transition is being driven by evolving regulatory frameworks

and supply chain realities that will require alignment across

agricultural production, ingredient processing, manufacturing

systems, and distribution and retail channels. Coordinated

federal engagement between USDA and HHS is essential to

ensure that these interconnected elements develop in a

practical, efficient, and economically viable manner.

Enhancing the capacity of domestic producers to increase

production of colorant crops presents a meaningful

opportunity for U.S. agriculture, but doing so at scale will

require deliberate planning, sustained research, and targeted

investment. Key considerations include agronornic suitability

across regions, identification of crops most effective for

reliable colorant production, crop genetics, and the need to

address barriers to scale such as pest and disease pressures,

harvesting technology, and other production challenges. In

addition, investment in processing and extraction

infrastructure--such as juicing and extraction facilities--

and the development of stable, predictable markets for

growers will be essential. In the absence of coordinated

efforts, these factors may limit the pace, efficiency, and

affordability with which domestic production capacity can be

developed.

At the same time, the current supply chain for many

naturally derived colorant inputs is global in nature. U.S.

manufacturers rely on established international sourcing

channels, which introduces exposure to trade dynamics,

regional production variability, and logistical constraints.

Federal coordination that considers both domestic production

capacity and global sourcing dependencies can help support

continuity of supply as domestic capabilities are developed

over time.

From a manufacturing perspective, incorporating naturally

derived colorants involves significant operational

considerations. These ingredients often require different

handling, processing conditions, and quality control

approaches than traditional alternatives, and their

successful integration may necessitate capital investments,

process modifications, and updated supply chain management

practices. Coordinated research, development, and

demonstration of methods and technologies, along with

information sharing across stakeholders, will be important to

support efficient implementation while maintaining product

consistency and regulatory compliance.

Your amendment appropriately recognizes that this is not a

single-agency issue. By establishing a framework for

interagency coordination, competitive and merit-reviewed

research, and collaboration across federal agencies,

institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations,

and industry partners, the amendment creates a strong

foundation for advancing this work. Support for research

infrastructure, workforce development, and public-private

collaboration will be critical to translating research into

scalable, real-world outcomes and sustaining progress over

time.

Thank you for your leadership on this issue and for your

attention to the operational and economic considerations

facing both U.S. agriculture and food manufacturers. We stand

ready to serve as a resource as this effort moves forward and

strongly encourage the House of Representatives to adopt your

amendment.

Sincerely,

National Confectioners Association, Consumer Brands

Association, International Dairy Foods Association,

Independent Bakers Association, SNAC International, American

Bakers Association, National Seasoning Manufacturers

Association.

Madam Chair, on Roll Call No. 147, I mistakenly voted AYE when I intended to vote NO.

Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mrs. Luna