Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's bill.

I appreciate my colleague from Louisiana. We have had a chance to serve together on committees. I know he has a strong respect for law enforcement, so I am not saying his heart is in the wrong place, but I am saying this bill is wrong. I say that from personal experience.

He is right, I was never in an active car pursuit, but I was a prosecutor here in Washington, D.C., and for 8 years in Prince George's County, which is the eastern border of Washington, D.C., so I have seen the results of some of these high-speed chases.

The bill that is drafted, that he has proposed, actually takes away a reasonable balance that was drawn by the people here of the District of Columbia, as is their right for a democracy.

Also, one of the things we need to keep in mind, and my colleague addressed this kind of briefly but, frankly, skipped over it, what happens when that chase leads to the death of innocent civilians?

When the gentleman said he had been in 100 car chases, a chill went through my body, I have to say, because I have seen the results, the deadly consequences of some of these car chases. When you have to go talk to that family and tell them why their loved ones died, you don't want to have to say that it was over something minor like a stolen car.

The balance that the city struck was that it should be for an imminent violent offense, high-level felony, something like that that you really understand why they would have engaged in the pursuit. This bill would take that away and expand it open so that you could have high-speed chases taking place with respect to misdemeanors.

This isn't a hypothetical for me. When I was the State's attorney in Prince George's County, we actually had one of these. We had several, but I will just pick one for purposes of time. A police officer saw a stolen motorcycle zip down the beltway and decided to pursue it. Stealing a motorcycle is a misdemeanor and speeding is a misdemeanor, but he decided to pursue it anyway.

Mind you, this is during rush hour, so he had to pursue on the border of the road, and speeds got up to over 100 miles an hour on the beltway in rush hour. Of course, it is hard for a car to catch a motorcycle, especially when it can weave in and out of traffic.

He didn't make the apprehension, but what he did do as he was speeding along on the side of the road at 100-plus miles an hour was come across debris on the road, and he tried to swerve to avoid it. When he did that, the car jumped over the Jersey barrier between the two lanes and took him into the opposite lane of oncoming traffic.

The car jumped over, hit the top of a car coming the opposite direction, and killed two men on their way to a concert. They had nothing to do with any kind of high-speed chase. They didn't have anything to do with any kind of criminal activity. These were people who were good folks, actually just visiting in the area--one was from Buffalo--who died because of a high-speed chase over a minor misdemeanor. That doesn't make any sense. It is not like that only happens in Prince George's County.

Here in Washington, D.C., we had a similar kind of case. It was back in 2016. It led up to a deadly chase on East Capitol and Benning Road. The chases the gentleman was talking about, maybe those were rural areas, but those are high-traffic areas even in the nighttime. Sometimes these pursuits take place during the day.

This led to the death of an innocent man. This was over a stolen car. Think about what you would say to that family when you are explaining to them that their father, brother, or son lost his life over a stolen car.

Then the other part that influences me--again, I represent Prince George's

County now--but sometimes when they start high-speed chases in D.C., they go into Prince George's County, Montgomery County, or Northern Virginia, and we lost someone during a high-speed chase on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway; another stolen car case.

When we make these decisions about when a chase is permitted or should be permitted or not, we need to keep in mind that there can be deadly consequences from when this happens, and it frequently occurs. It is not like this is unusual. The Washington Post just did a piece about the Park Police. There have been 10 of these instances in recent weeks.

I have a couple last points. One is liability. The Federal Government is going to put this burden on the city.

When that liability arises from a car chase ending in death that didn't make any sense to a jury, the city could be on the hook for millions of dollars. I guarantee they are not going to step in and have the Federal Government cover that for them. When we think about these things, we need to keep all of those things in mind.

The last point I will make, a variation on the home rule argument. D.C. is not a rural jurisdiction. In fact, its roads aren't even as straightforward as Manhattan. We have got diagonal roads that cut across, we have circles, and we have very dangerous intersections. I wish my colleagues knew how tricky it can be out there. A high-speed chase in the middle of the District of Columbia, even during the middle of the day is almost, by definition, dangerous almost under any circumstances, so you better have a really good reason to engage in a pursuit like that.

That is not the balance that is drawn by this bill. That is not the balance that was drawn by the people of the District of Columbia. It should be the balance, and they should make the call because when the deaths happen, my colleagues won't be anywhere to be found.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for hosting this Special Order today and for the great work that she has done on behalf of the State of Ohio and for the Nation. We serve on the Appropriations Committee together, and I have had a chance to see her do outstanding work on a firsthand basis, so I want to thank her for her service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of hardworking public servants who were using their expertise and training for scientific advancement that could save lives and preserve American leadership in technology and innovation. Unfortunately, the Trump administration forced them out of their jobs and out of their laboratories.

I had a chance to meet with many of these individuals over the last few months. We had a job fair in my district not that long ago, and a couple of people came through had a chance to chat with me. Unfortunately, we didn't have anything that met the caliber of the background and expertise that they possessed.

One was a Ph.D. researcher at NIH who had been doing clinical trials on Alzheimer's research. She told me that what had happened was she had been laid off. Everybody in her lab had been laid off. So what that meant was the trial that they had been running for years got shut down.

As we all know with clinical trials, Alzheimer's, cancer, and others--and I will come back to those--these aren't light switches, Mr. Speaker. We can't just flip the switch and start it back. In some of those instances, we have to start from scratch.

Alzheimer's is a disease that I have a special interest in. It killed my father. I watched him waste away from Alzheimer's, and I now pay closer attention to the impact that that disease can have and the way it ravages thousands of people every year across the country. Instead of doing the research to find a cure for Alzheimer's, their laboratory got shut down.

Medical devices was another one. I met a gentleman who was a mechanical engineer. He had been trained and earned his Ph.D. in research. He worked for the Federal Government. I believe he was at the FDA, if I recall correctly. He did tests to make sure that the medical devices that were up for approval had been tested and actually worked the way that they did.

He gave me an example. He said that pacemakers were one of those. There are people who are trying to make innovations with respect to these kinds of medical devices. The job at his office was to make sure that these worked the right way and were safe and efficacious. His lab got shut down.

I met another individual. She had a master's in public health. She got fired. You won't imagine how ironic it was, Mr. Speaker. She got fired, and she was doing work on measles. Just at the time they had the major outbreak in Texas, she was laid off, and her group was canceled out as well.

The New York Times, just last weekend I believe it was, published a cover story on their magazine about losing the war on cancer. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the United States has been one of the leading innovators with respect to research, and cancer has been a huge focus on that research. We have been doing outstanding work there and making huge strides forward.

As I mentioned a moment ago, I am a cancer survivor, and I was a beneficiary of the fact that we had innovations that changed the way that treatment was provided just in time for when I came along. That was 20 years ago. However, now we are shutting those clinical trials down, and that article lays it out clearly and sadly.

It was a little ironic. Mr. Speaker. You may recall that here in this Chamber, President Trump gave a speech. It looked kind of like a state of the Union, but it wasn't actually that address, but there was a young boy up in the seats over there who was a cancer survivor. He had him stand up. He gave him a badge from, I think it was, Secret Service and celebrated his survival. Just a few days later, the Trump administration terminated research for pediatric cancer.

We have to find a way to make sure we don't lose the competition with China. I just mentioned medical issues there, but the Trump administration is doing so many things with respect to research and development and high tech.

China, on the other hand, as we heard from one of my colleagues a moment ago, is pushing employees. They are developing them. They can't develop them fast enough, and they are pushing them into research and work with respect to artificial intelligence and quantum computing, while here in the United States, especially in the last 9 months, we are doing everything we can--well, the Trump administration is doing everything it can, it would seem, to limit the number of people who can go into this kind of work. They are cutting back on the grants that would allow people to do the research, and they are cutting the funding for people who are going to school to earn their Ph.D.s to pay for their education.

China is doing the exact opposite. To the extent the United States has been behind on creating its own researchers and developers here in the United States, we have had a lot of people come from overseas, people who are doing outstanding work, but they come from other countries. Then the Trump administration decided it wanted to cancel their visas.

Some of the attacks on Harvard, in particular, the big threat was: We are not going to let you have international students come to study. The result of that was, international students from all around the world who are the top of the line, doing outstanding work, this is the next generation we want to help and have them come. Many of them come to the United States from other places, and they like it here so much they stay. They build their careers.

In fact, many of the research and innovation entities that we have in the United States are run by people who have come from overseas, immigrants who have come to the United States. But we are forcing them away, scaring them away, and pushing them to other countries.

You have got to believe the other countries are welcoming them with open arms. I was just talking to a group who trains doctors, medical doctors. They said the people that we train here, they are being pulled away to other countries now because they can complete their medical training, go work overseas, the medical training gets covered, and so they can get their medical education done and then go to work and have a chance to be successful and provide the type of medical care and treatment that we want to have here in the United States, but we are losing that, as well.

We have got to make sure that we do everything we can to preserve the institutions and the departments and

agencies that are doing great work here in the United States. NASA, NOAA, FDA, and NIST are all doing great work. The universities we have got here are doing great work on the R&D front. That is the only way we are going to be able to win the competition with China. That includes AI, quantum computing, and high-tech. Those are the places that gave us the lead that we have in software and in the computer industry. GPS and LASIK were spinoffs of R&D that was worked on at NASA. Instead of building that up, the Trump administration is laying people off.

Mr. Speaker, 445,000 Federal employees lost their collective bargaining rights. As the Senate report pointed out, in forcing out tens of thousands of people who worked for the government--many of them doing the science and tech work that I just talked about--the Democratic staff report calls it: The $21 billion blunder, analyzing the waste generated by DOGE.

DOGE didn't focus only on science and tech, but its impact has been resonating there for sure in a very damaging way for the United States.

We need to work together to force the Trump administration to see the error of its ways. We need to make sure that we get back on track so that we can win the competition with China, preserve our leadership role in the world, and build on the great advances that we have had here in the United States.

Let's get to work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with deep concern over the weaponization of ICE by the Trump administration.

Just this weekend, I had a chance to see Trump Border Czar Tom Homan talking about how the administration is conducting the sweeps on the streets and that they are doing it to prioritize public safety and national security. Yet, the facts tell a different story.

According to CBS, only 8 percent of those detained have been convicted of violent crimes. The conservative Cato Institute found that only 7 percent of detainees were violent criminals.

In fact, most detainees aren't even criminals at all. Of the people in detention, about half of them have criminal records. That is 300,000 people who are detained and who do not have criminal records at all.

This administration is not actually prioritizing the most dangerous people, even though President Trump promised on the campaign trail that that is exactly what he would do.

Mr. Homan also said that this administration always follows the law. However, last week, a Federal judge ordered ICE to stop conducting roving patrols, stop the sweeping arrests without reasonable suspicion, and stop denying access to lawyers.

Mr. Speaker, the findings in this case are shocking. This is some of the worst examples of racial profiling I have seen even during my 12 years as a prosecutor.

For example, some people were waiting at bus stops and having coffee when they were then surrounded by ICE agents in unmarked vehicles that sped up in their direction. They leapt out with masks on and their guns drawn and ran immediately toward these individuals. They then handcuffed these individuals and forced them into vehicles and drove them away. All of this was done before they had even asked them for identification.

The men thought they were being kidnapped. Some of them had their feet, hands, and wrists shackled, and another man even had a gun pointed at him.

The court who was reviewing these cases questioned what it was about the bus stop that caused these ICE agents to believe they had reasonable suspicion to detain these men. Reasonable suspicion means that there is evidence at the time that each of these men had committed a crime or were in the process of committing a crime.

What was the basis of the ICE agents' reasonable suspicion? The court reviewed it and found that the government said: It was based on their past experiences that have demonstrated that illegal aliens utilize and seek to work at certain places, like getting their car washed or waiting for the bus.

Nothing about these men suggested that they were in the country illegally or about to commit a crime at the time that they were stopped.

They didn't even ask for ID before they were gun-faced and then handcuffed and taken away. The bottom line is that these men were taken into custody simply because they were Latino.

Clearly, these tactics are unconstitutional. The use of race as the basis for grabbing people on the street the courts have long ago ruled are across the line and illegal.

These tactics threaten some of the most basic and important principles that serve as the backbone for our Nation: the rule of law. Like the unlawful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and the willful defiance of a unanimous Supreme Court decision to bring him back, the Trump administration is unapologetic in its efforts to target immigrants, the Constitution, and the law be damned.

Now, in addition to being unconstitutional, this wastes a great deal of tax dollars because they are detaining masses of people in these large sweeps, only to have to release them when proof of their legal status is shown. It also horrifies the citizens who have to go through this experience.

We now have Latino citizens who are afraid to leave their house to go to work or even to go to court. Remember the so-called Venezuelan violent gang members deported to the gulag in El Salvador. As it turns out, according to the Cato Institute, 50 of those men were not criminals. Their paperwork was in order. They were in the United States legally, and they hadn't committed any kind of crimes in El Salvador or Venezuela.

Instead of focusing on criminals, they are grabbing people like the 64-year-old mother who was gardening in New Orleans, the father of three marines who had been working in the United States for decades, or yesterday when ICE raided a baseball summer camp. This is not the best use of our Federal law enforcement agents.

I am a former Federal and State prosecutor. I deeply respect the rule of law and understand the responsibility elected officials have to protect it. We have got to do better than this. Let's focus on getting violent criminals off the street. There are more than 100,000 open warrants in the United States on any given day. Let's focus on those, and let's move forward in a way that respects the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding and for organizing this Special Order hour honoring the life of the late colleague of ours, Congressman John Lewis.

Congressman Lewis once said: ``Ordinary people with extraordinary vision can redeem the soul of America by getting in what I call good trouble, necessary trouble.''

We need to get into good trouble now more than ever.

It certainly feels like today we are in the struggle for the soul of America, a soul that desperately needs healing.

In the fight to heal the soul of America in 1965, Congressman Lewis got into good trouble. The good trouble he found himself in in Selma nearly cost him his life, but from that good trouble came great progress: the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicaid, Medicare, and the Fair Housing Act. These were monumental achievements made possible through many years of nonviolent struggle by ordinary people with an extraordinary vision.

Sadly, 60 years later, it feels like we are going backward. Last time we were on this floor, House Republicans passed a bill to rip away healthcare from millions of Americans and to take food assistance away from families in need.

For House Republicans and President Trump, making it harder for kids to eat so that some billionaires can pay less in taxes, may count as progress, but America is better than that.

To move in the right direction again, we must fight back for what we believe in: to protect the vulnerable, to assist those in need, and to fight against discrimination.

John Lewis serves as an inspiration for all of us during these unprecedented and difficult times for so many of our constituents. We must stay engaged, stay focused, and stay committed to the American ideals we cherish, the ideals Congressman John Lewis fought for both in this House and in Selma.

To heal the soul of America, again, we need to remain inspired by John Lewis and to get into good trouble again.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from Ohio and California for hosting this event today.

My colleague from Virginia who just spoke, which I hadn't actually planned on talking much about that, but after my family moved from North Carolina, we moved to Virginia and one of the things I recall was Virginia history.

We had our history book. Interestingly enough, it started with Jamestown and Williamsburg obviously, then it kind of skipped ahead to the Civil War and the focus of the Civil War. There is no mention of slavery in between the two, by the way, or barely any.

The focus of the Civil War was what they called the great Confederate generals: Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and the others. It talked about how great they were as generals, and the fact that if they only had an equal amount of supplies as the Union generals, they would have been able to win the war. They called it the war between the States.

In some instances, the war of northern aggression, which is a little hard to imagine these days, but that was the schoolbook I learned from in my public school in Prince William County.

The interesting thing about that, we have seen what the effort was with respect to the attempt to change history, we became the United States after the Civil War, after the African-American community was liberated from slavery and there was a chance to have the opportunity to vote, to participate fully in the community, in the Nation. That was overturned essentially by a deal that was cut between the North and the South after President Lincoln was assassinated and it led to the segregation of African Americans across the country.

What went side by side with that was the obliteration of the actual history of what had led up to that point and the twisting of history to argue that, essentially, African Americans couldn't be trusted to be voting people in the democracy; that, in some instances, they even claimed that African Americans belonged in chains, belonged in slavery. As you heard earlier, the suggestion--I think that was from the Florida State government, not 150 years ago but recently--that African Americans actually benefited from being enslaved.

Now, we all know how silly that is or, I guess, our colleagues, maybe not necessarily in Florida, but it is a ridiculous statement. It is the kind of erasure and twisting of history that I think is critical to make sure that we fight against.

My mother was a librarian. My mother-in-law ended up being a librarian, so we had a heavy concentration of focus on books in my family during that stretch and the importance of history. I thought I would give a couple of examples of some of the issues that had popped up with respect to what the Trump administration has done.

This is the executive order by President Trump that was issued in March. It was titled: ``Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.'' The reality is it wasn't about restoring truth and sanity to American history, it was really about hiding and deleting and whitewashing American history.

One of the things they did in their first steps was to go to the Naval Academy. I guess an executive order was issued and the Department of Defense focused on this, in part. The Naval Academy, in response to that executive order and those directions from the White House and the Pentagon, pulled the book called ``I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings'' from the bookshelves at the Naval Academy. That was by Maya Angelou, who was one of the most respected writers in American history.

If I recall correctly, she was one of the poet laureates and spoke at one of the inaugurations, as well.

What I thought was interesting about that was that even though they pulled Maya Angelou's book from the shelves--the book, by the way, was an autobiography. It talked about her rise, her growth as she was raised in the South, and the terrible things that she went through, including sexual assault and racial discrimination issues, and how she rose above it. In fact, a later book that she wrote based on one of her poems is called ``And Still I Rise,'' and it is the type of inspiring literature that I think not only should we not be hiding from Americans, but we should be encouraging all Americans to see.

The Naval Academy pulled that book, but they left two copies of another book, ``Mein Kampf'' by Adolf Hitler, still on the shelves. In addition to that, there was another book that they left called ``The Bell Curve.'' You might not recall ``The Bell Curve,'' but I distinctly remember when it was published. ``The Bell Curve'' argued that Black men and women are genetically less intelligent than White people. That is still on the shelves at the Naval Academy, but the book that critiqued ``The Bell Curve'' was pulled. This is what we are getting from the Trump administration.

Of the books that they called for them to review, I think it was approximately 900 books. They reviewed those books, based on the request from the Trump administration, based on the executive order. Ultimately, it resulted in nearly 400 books being selected for removal from the Naval Academy's library.

What I thought was interesting about that was the person the library is named after, Admiral Nimitz, actually held a totally different conception about what should happen with respect to the sharing of information in books. In fact, he founded the library for this 179- year-old institution in Annapolis, Maryland.

I represent Maryland. I am proud of the Naval Academy in Annapolis, but this is a low moment in the history of the academy, I must say.

In response to this decision, one of its alums, Admiral James Stavridis,

said: ``The Pentagon might have an argument if midshipmen were being forced to read these 400 books.''

By the way, he is an author, an academy alumnus, and a former Commander of all U.S. forces in Europe.

``As I understand it, they were just among the hundreds of thousands of books in the Nimitz Library which a student might opt to check out. What are we afraid of keeping from them in the library?''

I couldn't agree more with this question.

``Book banning can be a canary in a coal mine and could predict a stifling of free speech and thought,'' he continued. ``Books that challenge us make us stronger. We need officers who are educated, not indoctrinated.''

General Mark Milley is not a fan of the Trump administration. Certainly, the feeling seems to be mutual. You may recall, back in June 2021, this issue came up where they were challenging him with respect to something that was called critical race theory. We won't go into all of that, but keep in mind that K-12 schools never taught critical race theory. In any event, they brought it up with General Milley. He said: ``I have read Mao Zedong. I have read Karl Marx. I have read Lenin. That doesn't make me a Communist.''

He then offered an argument for expanding political studies in the service of defending the Constitution after the January 6 attack on the Capitol. He said: ``I want to understand White rage, and I am White and I want to understand it. What is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America?''

Just a little aside on that point, there is a plaque that has been requested to be posted here in the Capitol that represents the brave men and women of the Capitol Police who fought to protect the people who were trapped here by the attacking mob. The Republican leadership refuses to post that plaque, but you can't change history.

As another example, they wanted to eliminate information about Jackie Robinson, the celebrated baseball player, a Hall of Fame star, who was a great baseball player for sure but also celebrated because he integrated Major League Baseball. Prior to his arrival, African Americans were basically not allowed to play in the major leagues. They wanted to strip out this information about Jackie Robinson.

This is an article that talks about Robinson's military service during World War II, when he served in the 761st Tank Battalion, the Black Panthers. It noted that he was court-martialed, but eventually acquitted, after refusing to move to the back of an Army bus in 1944. He received an honorable discharge later that year.

This touches me a bit because my father-in-law served in World War II and was a decorated soldier, as well. In fact, after World War II, he reenlisted for ground combat in Korea. They made him wait a few days to make sure that he really knew what he was doing, and of course, he did. He is buried at Arlington now. He had a Silver Star and two Bronze Stars, outstanding service, and rose to the level of captain.

When he came back from Italy, where he had been serving, to the United States, he was in an all-Black battalion. There were German prisoners who actually had a chance to ride in the front of the train, while he and his other Black colleagues still had to ride in the back because segregation continued. Even though the war against Hitler was supposed to be a war to end racism and fight Nazi discrimination, when he got back here, it was still the same old story.

They also tried to strip out information about Medgar Evers, a World War II veteran and Mississippi civil rights activist who was assassinated in 1963. He had been a leader with the local NAACP and was assassinated because he was fighting for the right to vote for African Americans. They erased that information from the Arlington National Cemetery website.

The Army removed, but subsequently reinstated, a website dedicated to the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, the most decorated unit in military history. That unit was made up of Japanese-American soldiers who fought despite the internment of their families. Those were the concentration camps that held Japanese Americans, largely in California but also in other parts of the country.

Despite that, Japanese-American soldiers volunteered to fight in World War II. One of those soldiers, Daniel Inouye, later became a long-serving United States Senator from Hawaii. I remember Senator Inouye primarily from his leadership in the Watergate hearings. He was an outstanding public servant, a great American, and a great soldier, but they tried to eliminate his history from the history books here.

We have this most recent incident, too. President Trump fired the Librarian of Congress. This one kind of came out of the blue, it seemed to me. She had served in that position for nearly 10 years, including during his first administration. She had been celebrated as a great Librarian, and she had done a great job in the position.

Normally, you get long terms for your service, and there was no indication that she had done anything wrong until Trump two came back, Trump 47, and they decided to fire her. They gave her a two-sentence letter that said, after all of your years in service, you are still terminated.

It kicked up such a controversy, the White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said there were quite concerning things that she had done at the Library of Congress in the pursuit of DEI and putting inappropriate books in the Library for children.

Keep in mind a couple of things. One is that the Library of Congress is not a lending library for the public, so there was no risk that any kids would be taking these books or any books from the Library of Congress.

Secondly, the Library of Congress has over 178 million items. It is the repository for the United States Congress. The department that deals with copyright for books is under that, and the Congressional Research Service is under her authority, as well.

Mr. Speaker, that is why they have so many books, including books that you or I might not want to read or we might not agree with. The point is all of the books need to be there because we need that repository.

By the way, it is the Library of Congress. Those of us here in Congress know this is a resource for us. There is absolutely no reason that the President of the United States should be meddling with our repository. It is really inappropriate and wrong. That is why it hadn't happened prior to that.

Congressman Gerry Connolly made this observation about the firing of Ms. Hayden, the librarian. With this decision, Donald Trump continues his attempts to censor our history, bend our culture to his will, and interfere with the free flow of information among the American people. It is a national disgrace.

I couldn't agree more. The reality is that, despite the executive order, this administration is actually making it more difficult for children and adults to learn about American history. They are slashing museum budgets by gutting the Institute of Museum and Library Services. They are defunding public broadcasting and public television.

The President does not decide what is worthy of being in a museum, and he shouldn't decide what is worthy of being in a library. He should not be deciding what our children learn in school, and he should not be afraid of American history.

Knowing our history makes us stronger because knowledge is power. That power, the power of the truth, belongs to all Americans. It is the basis of our democracy. It is the key to our future.

It is critical, as the United States moves forward, that we preserve our history, learn our history, and understand our history so that we don't repeat the negative aspects of our history.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and the Congressional Black Caucus for their work on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus to address and speak to these issues because they are so timely.

There are new developments that come every day that keep us guessing as to what the Trump administration is going to do from one moment to the next. I am going to talk about this plane from Qatar toward the end.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today about my deep concern about the appropriations and budget processes as established by the Constitution because they are broken. I rise out of deep concern for our institution, our responsibilities, and for the American people who elected us to make decisions.

The continuing resolutions that we have been passing are temporary stopgaps, but they have become the norm. It is not just a failure of a process. It is a failure of President Trump's leadership and House Republican leadership.

Trump's economic failures include trying to make his tax cuts permanent, the DOGE cuts, and the irresponsibility of the tariff packages. Thank goodness, I think he backed away a few days ago with respect to cutting a deal with China, but that is only for 90 days.

The challenge of the erratic and illegal behavior he has been exhibiting is that it really puts companies in a very difficult spot. Companies have to make decisions not just moment to moment, as apparently President Trump does, but over months and sometimes years, especially if they are going to make major decisions about something like investing to build a new plant. That can cost millions or even billions of dollars.

When he does things like puts up 130-something percent in tariffs against one of the main trading partners of the United States, like China, it creates a major problem for companies that trade with China and that get their materials or send their finished products to China.

Many of them are small American businesses. We have seen and heard from many of those over the past couple of days. I have been listening to some who are toy manufacturers. They talk about what has happened to their companies on the radio. They are concerned about what might happen for them during the Christmas holidays, a key time of year for their businesses.

The Trump administration didn't pay any attention to that. In fact, he just moved forward with the tariffs that he put in place. He did so not just against China, not just against our adversaries, but against allies like Canada, Mexico, France, Germany, and other countries. It has been devastating to the American economy and businesses across the country.

He ran for election telling the American people that he was going to make their economic lives better and that he was going to help them financially be better off than they were under the Biden administration. However, it is clear in the first 6 months that what he has been doing is he is not putting money in their pockets, he is taking it out.

I think it is critical for us to make sure we understand fully what is going on here with respect to the packages that they are trying to move. He is trying to do this mainly through executive order. He has been unable to move major pieces of legislation through the House, and House leadership hasn't pressed him to do it, even though we are supposed to be doing these things through the appropriations process.

As a matter of fact, the Constitution gave us the obligation to move these bills through the appropriations process, but the Republican leadership in the House has failed to do that.

The failure to pass these appropriations bills has led to things like Federal workers are being forced out of their positions. Some of them are concerned about whether their paychecks are going to come. Small businesses, we just mentioned a moment ago, especially those who are relying on government contracts, are having trouble making payroll. In some of those instances, they have already done the work that they are supposed to get paid for.

However, the Trump administration has done two things. One is it has withdrawn contracts, but it has also, even though they performed the work, refused to make the payments and forced some of these companies to shut down and fire some of their employees even though they already did the work.

We are also going to have challenges I think, too, with respect to communities who have been hit by major disasters. Unfortunately, I just saw while we were waiting to start this process a few minutes ago, we had three major natural disasters today across the country, but FEMA is under attack, and the funding is being cut.

With respect to reconciliation, as we just talked about a moment ago, the $881 billion in cuts to Medicaid are a shocking development. We know what that could mean for communities across the country is that hospitals have to shut down, medical treatment facilities might have to be closed, and people who perform medical services like doctors and nurses might not be available.

Certainly, in urban areas and suburban areas like mine, there is going to be a major impact from that, and in red States and rural districts as well.

I just heard a report on the radio last week. It was talking about a district in

a rural area where I think they said that 70 percent of their funding comes through Medicaid in one way or another. If these cuts are made then that hospital is going to have to close and if that hospital closes then it creates, essentially, a medical desert going 200 miles each way. So the next time you have a serious car accident in that area, Mr. Speaker, they are going to have a tough time getting people the care that they need for any kind of medical emergency, say perhaps from a complication in a birth scenario or basic day-to-day medical services, they are going to have to drive hundreds of miles, in some instances, just to go see a doctor.

With respect to the impoundment issue, I want to raise that too because the Trump administration has started making the argument that even though money has been appropriated, they don't have to spend it. The reason they are trying to do that is because they want to take control away from Congress. They want to take control of the power of the purse that was given to Congress through the Constitution. They want to do that so they can marginalize Congress and make the spending decisions that they want to make.

We saw that with the $1.6 trillion, the Trump administration decided how to spend that because we didn't pass a regular appropriations set of bills. We had to do it through the continuing resolution. It left them discretion that I don't think they should have. I have to say I am concerned about the way he has used that discretion in some of these processes.

They have made budget cuts, for example, to VOCA. That stands for the Victims of Crime Act. They are cutting grants to help people who are victims of crime.

Why would he take a step like that?

The Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, is to help women who are surviving sexual assault and domestic violence.

Why would he cut a program like that?

They cut USAID programs. One of our colleagues referenced earlier about how that has had a positive impact on the starvation issues, the USAID efforts. However, they are cutting programs that will to lead to, I saw one estimate, 1.6 million people who will die over the next year based on these cuts that he is making right now to foreign aid.

We stopped funding AmeriCorps, which means less teachers in areas that are in desperate need of teaching assistants. We have a lot of schools out there who are short on full-time teachers. They are certainly short on full-time certified teachers. Cuts to AmeriCorps just exacerbate the problem.

Cutting rental subsidies means that low-income families will have trouble keeping a roof over their heads. The Trump administration is going to make it even harder for them to do that.

Why would we take that step?

How is that consistent with the promise he made to help American people who needed help the most?

He is making cuts to mental health services. We have got kids who are struggling in school. They are bullied sometimes. We have some scenarios where we have serious violent attacks in the schools. It might be a mass shooting from a gun situation. It might be something less serious than that. We have got kids who need assistance with their mental health challenges across the country, and making cuts to those sorts of programs only makes it harder for these kids to survive and get through the school process.

There are cuts to NIH. Now, I know he had, frankly, a vendetta, essentially, against Dr. Fauci, and he is taking that out on many of the health institutions, like the NIH. However, at the end of the day, it is clear that the NIH has been and continues to be, hopefully, at least if it can survive these cuts, one of the premier institutions that do medical research that makes a difference here in the United States and around the world.

He is cutting medical research on cancer. I am a cancer survivor. It is important to folks like me, and there are a lot of folks who are cancer survivors. The only reason we are still here is because of the medical advances that were made at places like NIH based on research that was done using government funding. That is how these things happen.

Alzheimer's is another one. My father died from Alzheimer's. It is one of the most horrific diseases you can possibly imagine. Mr. Speaker, you would never even wish it on your worst enemy. It is hard to even explain how tragic it is to watch a human being slide from being the full person that they were into something ravaged by Alzheimer's. They cut funding for clinical trials for Alzheimer's at NIH. The thing about clinical trials that you need to remember, Mr. Speaker, it is not like an off switch. You don't just flick it on and off and it comes right back. If you shut down a clinical trial, Mr. Speaker, you might have to start that all the way from scratch. In some instances, the research and the projects that have been going forward under that have taken years. So he is setting that back years and months.

Why? Why would he do that?

He is making cuts to grants to help people who want to go into the science fields. The United States, certainly in the last 50 years and the postwar era, has been the premier nation with respect to science and technology and innovation.

That is how we got Apple, that is how we got Microsoft, and that is why we have quantum computing. All of these fantastic innovations and giant steps forward came from the United States, in part because of the research that was funded in part by the Federal Government. The people who developed many of those advances got their training and got their college and Ph.D.s paid for using funding that helped them get through school. They wouldn't have been able to pay for it otherwise. Yet the Trump administration is making cuts not just to those programs but also to the grants and funding that help those people get through.

To add insult to injury, he makes personal attacks on research institutions like Harvard, which has been the source of some of the best, the brightest, and most talented who have taken leadership in these fields. He is making threats to undermine those institutions and those universities just out of personal venom.

It makes absolutely no sense. It is damaging to the United States, and it undermines our leadership in science and technology in the world. He says it is America first, but sometimes it feels like China first. Sometimes it feels as if he is actually trying to help the Communist Chinese Party leadership surge ahead of the United States in its leadership role in science and technology.

Then there are $40 million in cuts for election security. I know he still says that he won the 2020 election. Okay, fine. However, one of the things we can all agree on for sure is that we know the Russians and the Chinese and, in some instances, Iran and terrorist organizations around the world are making efforts to influence our elections with misinformation, disinformation, and the like.

Why would we ever make our elections more vulnerable to those kinds of attacks by cutting the funding that helps defend against it?

I will stop with this regarding the plane. When I first saw that on the news, I thought it was a joke. I thought it was a clip from Saturday Night Live or something. I never imagined that the Trump administration or the Trump family would even consider taking a $400- million plane from a country like Qatar, which is not exactly an adversary country but certainly it is not an ally country. It is a foreign country. The reason the Emoluments Clause was put in place in the Constitution was to make sure that Presidents of the United States of America, whether it is number one or number 47, are not tempted or tested with these kinds of, essentially, bribes to try and get them to lean and issue support for their countries in making decisions. We want to make sure we have people like the President of the United States not tested by the money and not tempted by the money but always making the decisions for the best possible reasons and the best interests of the United States.

However, here we have a $400-million plane, and apparently, he will eventually own it personally.

Now, Mr. Speaker, tell me why that is beneficial for the country. It creates

conflicts of interest and then some, because we have all of these issues with Qatar, including the negotiations with the Gaza conflict.

How is this going to be beneficial to the United States to create these levels of conflict?

Even if he can rise above them, the appearance of the conflicts is ridiculous, it is astonishing, and it is unacceptable. The National Review, not exactly a liberal rag and not exactly a liberal bastion, has said that the swamp is under new ownership.

So much for the commitments that he made to the American people when he first ran and when he ran again to so-called clean up the swamp.

Here we are. It violates the Constitution. I think on its face he should know better, and I am sure that everybody in the Congress knows that sometimes he needs guardrails. He always needs guardrails. This is the moment we have to make sure we stand up and put the guardrails in place.

To my colleagues here in Congress: Let's get back to work. Let's stand up and address this issue. As far as the conflicts of interest with the plane, let's make it clear that we unanimously oppose him taking the plane, certainly on behalf of the United States, and certainly in his personal capacity.

We unanimously want to move forward with a budget that is fair and reasonable and helps the American people, not one that takes $881 billion out of their pockets, out of the pockets of kids, out of the pockets of seniors, out of the pockets of the disabled, and the people who need it the most.

We have to make sure that when the budget process is done, we are protecting the people who need it the most. Right now it looks like we are taking from the most vulnerable to give to the most wealthy, like Elon Musk and his allies. We have got to reverse that process.

I want to commend the gentlewoman for pulling this together, my colleagues with the Congressional Black Caucus, my colleagues in the Democratic Caucus, and, hopefully, my colleagues in the Republican caucus who will stand up and say: We can't do this. We cannot cross these lines. The plane is over the line. The $881 billion in cuts to Medicaid is over the line. The no more appropriations bills, that is over the line. Let's get back to work. Let's engage in clear and proper oversight, and let's address these problems and do the work that helps the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, my colleague from Ohio, and the previous speakers. It is an honor to be here, not just as a Member of Congress, but to be here as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, especially at a time like this.

I rise today not just with concern, but with alarm. In his first 100 days back in the White House, Donald Trump has unleashed a full-blown assault on America, on our institutions, on our workers, on the rule of law, and on democracy itself. This is not leadership. This is a broken promise.

I will talk a little bit as we go forward about the promises that now President Trump made during the campaign, especially with respect to the economy. He said he was going to put money back in people's pockets, but as we have seen dramatically in the first 100 days, it has been quite the opposite.

I had one friend tell me that his 401(k) had turned into a 101(K) after Trump put his destructive tariffs in place. It has been damaging not just for people who own stocks, not just for people who are small business owners, but for every American across the country. Unfortunately, it looks like it is going to get worse in short order.

I will start first with government workers. The President promised to tackle government waste, but it has been anything but that, as we have seen his administration systematically targeted the Federal workforce, gutting critical agencies, sidelining career professionals, and pushing out civil servants not for failing to do their jobs, but for doing them too well.

I will talk about the waste piece for just a moment here, too. I know they said he is out here trying to cut waste, fraud, and abuse, but we know that is not right because one of the first things he did was fire the investigators who were in charge of ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse. They are called inspectors general. He fired 18 of them all at once almost on his first day in office, so you know he is not trying to cut back on waste, fraud, and abuse.

What he is trying to do actually is eliminate nonpolitical Federal workers, people who have gotten their positions based on merit, people who are distinguished in their careers, have outstanding experience, great credentials, but he is trying to force them out so he can replace them with people who are politically loyal to him.

I just want to chat a little bit about the firing of these people because I know a lot of folks across the country are not in love with government workers. They think maybe it is a good thing to get rid of government workers, but I am asking people to keep in mind the dire consequences of these terminations.

For example, he terminated people who were running clinical trials at NIH, clinical trials on things like Alzheimer's, cancer, and measles. Take the measles one, for example. I ran into a woman at a church I was attending a few weeks ago. She had a Ph.D., and she was working on a clinical trial in measles. The idea was to figure out how to address the measles outbreak that has just been happening.

On that front, think about this: Basically, measles had been eradicated in the United States. At this point, though, last I heard a few days ago, we have 2,000 people in the United States who are now suffering from measles, and we have actually had two people die--one of them a child--from measles, something that has been eradicated, and we have been addressing for decades now, but it is catching its steam again and starting to kill more people.

The Alzheimer's piece is especially of concern to me. My father died from Alzheimer's, and watching that happen is like ripping your heart out. They had clinical trials going on Alzheimer's which were shut down based on the terminations of the Trump administration.

The thing about clinical trials that you need to remember is it is not like a light switch. You don't just switch it right back on again. When you shut down a clinical trial, some of which have been running for years and have cost thousands, potentially even millions of dollars, you can't just start it right back up again. You have to start over with those. The decision he made to shut down these clinical trials will push back the ability to have cures for some of the most debilitating and dangerous diseases facing humanity today.

Cuts to hospitals is another one. Now, closures of rural and urban hospitals in many instances are going to be a result of the Medicaid cuts that they are talking about making right now, and that is not just President Trump, that is some of my House Republican colleagues here, too.

Make no mistake: That is going to lead to hospitals closing in the places where they are needed most. I just read an op-ed over the weekend about a doctor who was working in a rural area, and his hospital was dead center between hospitals that are 200 miles apart, so if his hospital has to shut down, you would have to drive 100 miles each way to get to another hospital. He talked about the emergency surgery that they had performed once when there was an accident near where his hospital was located. If they hadn't had the hospital there and been able to provide the emergency treatment that they provided, those people would have died. He is talking about closing these hospitals down.

Make sure you understand, too, for many areas, this is the only access to medical care that those communities have. Not only that, those hospitals are economic engines for those communities because for many of them, those are the jobs in those communities that the people turn to and need the most.

Schools. Terminating title I funding or cutting it back to the extent they have talked about I have been told could lead to the shutdown of a number of schools, not just in urban areas, but in rural areas, as well because the title I funding goes to teachers who are teaching at low- income schools, based on the formulas that they use to make those determinations.

You are going to have teachers being lost, teachers who were terminated in the schools and districts where they are the most needed. In many of these areas, those are the schools that are still trying to catch up from the losses that were caused during the COVID outbreak. We shouldn't be shutting these down. We should be expanding the resources that they have, but those title I schools are at risk.

Firing veterans. When they fire these government workers, one thing they don't seem to remember is that 30 percent of all government workers across the country are veterans. Keep in mind, too, these aren't just people in the D.C. metropolitan area. Eighty percent of government workers live outside of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. There are jurisdictions and States and communities across the country, providing services that those communities need. They won't miss the water until the well runs dry.

Mr. Speaker, I will stop with this one, just on the government cuts piece. There have been cuts for victims of crime. There are VOCA cuts and VAWA cuts. VOCA stands for Victims of Crime Act, VAWA stands for Violence Against Women Act. These are the type of funds, grants that have been making a difference in law enforcement across the country and in fights against things like domestic violence and sexual abuse, and he is making the cuts there, too.

It is not just there. I will chat a little bit about the rule of law issue here, too. The President promised to uphold the law, as he must do. All of us take an oath when we are sworn in--the President, all of us in Congress, I even took one when I was elevated to become a Federal prosecutor. He is not following that oath, though.

As a matter of fact, we have seen this administration illegally deny due process rights despite a Supreme Court order to return my constituent, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, back to the United States.

Just a moment on that. Kilmar was deported from the United States even though a judge had given an order saying that he could not be sent to El Salvador until another determination was

made. Not only did they send him to El Salvador in violation of that order, they sent him to one of the worst jails in the world, which houses MS-13, which is the exact group that that judge said he was supposed to be kept away from. That is where they sent him.

The Supreme Court said: You need to facilitate his return. The Trump administration has made no efforts whatsoever to do that. As a matter of fact, President Trump was sitting in the Oval Office with President Bukele, the President of El Salvador, and they were joking about it.

Last week, when President Trump did an interview, he said, yeah, he could just pick up the phone and have him brought back, but he is not going to do it, despite the Supreme Court order. There have been other orders, too, that they are ignoring and not following.

This isn't just a problem for Mr. Garcia. Think about that 4-year-old child who was deported last week, the one with stage IV cancer who was sent out of the United States with no medicine, no chance to talk to his doctor. Is that what America has become? Apparently that is what Donald Trump thinks the people want.

I have to tell you, that is absolutely the wrong path for this Nation to be taking. I know we want to deal with the immigration issue, but we can't do it at the expense of children, and we can't do it at the expense of violating basic due process rights.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker? The judges who have told him that are not just the Supreme Court but sometimes conservative Republican judges like Judge Wilkinson in the Fourth Circuit based in Richmond. He is one of the most conservative judges in the country and a Reagan appointee. He chastised the Trump administration for violating basic due process. Basically, he said it could not be more obvious than this, that a person should have a chance to have his day in court before something as drastic as deportation happens to him.

Not only did Trump ignore that but he talked about deporting American citizens when he was sitting there with the President of El Salvador. I raised concerns about that. I had Republican friends who got on me about it. Guess what? The House Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Homeland Security had votes. The Democrats proposed amendments that said let's make it illegal, let's make a ban on deporting American citizens. Every Republican on both committees voted against that ban. That is where we are right now.

Let me talk a little bit about tariffs. The President promised to make our lives more affordable. He said America was too expensive. Yet, his tariffs have sent the Nation into a tailspin. Mr. Speaker, I guess you could say there are times when tariffs might make sense, but he did it the exact worst way possible that it could be done. He did tariffs on all countries and on all products at the exact same time.

There is no way that can work, and there is no reason to do it because sometimes tariffs are placed on things that we don't even make in the United States. We don't grow bananas. We don't grow coffee. We don't grow chocolate. Why is he imposing tariffs on those items?

Then, the tariffs he imposed on some of our best allies, like Canada, disrupted the automobile market. They are still struggling to try to get their way. He backed off of the giant tariffs that he put in, but he left 10 percent tariffs in place.

We are still in the middle of one of the worst trade wars we have ever seen in human history based on--what is it?--140 percent now with China. At some point, it is going to be zillions, I suppose, with those sorts of tariffs.

The bottom line is it is going to take the country into a recession, and we know it.

I hope that we get a sense of how to pull this back together. I saw the President making comments, and he doubled down on them the other day. This is the one about maybe kids will have to get just two dolls instead of 30 dolls or something. Maybe it will cost a little bit more. I guess that was his best ``bah, humbug'' imitation to sort of make light of the fact that these tariffs that he has put in place are going to make things more expensive for the American people.

That is in contrast and the exact opposite of what he promised to do when he ran for office and was elected. That is not right.

President Trump, Elon Musk, and their billionaire buddies have pushed a budget that is nothing short of a war on working families. While Trump and House Republicans push for new handouts for the wealthy, we have massive cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and SNAP. The same man who claims to champion the forgotten American is cutting healthcare for the disabled, for children, and for seniors.

This is an administration that rules not with hope but with fear, and it is using the machinery of government not to serve the people but to punish the President's perceived enemies, including those who brought January 6 rioters to justice. I will take just a moment on that.

He actually forced out the Department of Justice prosecutors who did nothing but handle cases that they were supposed to handle. I guess he is going to say that they were mishandled in some way. Guess what? The prosecution of the January 6 rioters resulted in more than 1,000 convictions. My recollection is there might have been two or three acquittals during that period, but everything else was a conviction.

Let's say even more people have been acquitted. That doesn't mean these prosecutors did anything wrong. It certainly doesn't mean that they should be forced out of their positions.

It is the same thing with the FBI agents. They sent over a list of 5,000 FBI agents to the Department of Justice. Guess what the common denominator was? They had all worked on January 6 investigations. Instead of our FBI agents focusing on terrorism or organized crime, they have to look over their shoulders because they know the President is coming after them.

He has the Department of Justice weaponized not to go after the criminals but to go after career FBI agents who have done nothing but serve the public and fight crime for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. As we move past 100 days, I will never stop fighting for those I represent against the abuses of this administration. We are not just battling over budgets. We are battling over the future of the country we wish to have--not a government for the wealthy and well-connected but a government that works for all people.

This is not business as usual. House Democrats are standing up and fighting back.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for tonight and for pulling this together and doing such an outstanding job in moving this forward. I am thankful for the people out there, the people in communities across the country who have come to rallies. Some are Democrats; some aren't. Some are Republicans; some aren't. They are coming out to express their concerns about the direction this Nation is taking.

Mr. Speaker, I thank them for doing that and for making sure they remember that they have the ultimate power. They are the ones who determine what happens with this democracy, and now is the time for them to stand up and for us to stand with them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and recognize the Eastern Province of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity Incorporated on the historic milestone of 100 years of achievement and service. Since 1925, when Brother Earl B. Dickerson, the 5th Grand Polemarch of Kappa Alpha Psi, appointed John Miller Marquees as the first Eastern Province Polemarch, the province has exhibited the fundamental purpose of the organization achievement in every field of human endeavor.

As a proud member of the Hyattsville-Landover Alumni Chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi, I have seen first-hand the commitment to excellence, brotherhood, and the betterment of mankind exhibited by the Eastern Province. With 5 total regions, including all of Washington, D.C., Virginia, Bermuda, and Maryland, the Eastern Province includes over 100 undergraduate and alumni chapters, whose God-fearing and serious minded men have positively contributed to society and the fraternity for the past 100 years.

The Eastern Province of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity Incorporated serves as an embodiment of the organization's core values and principles. Under the 30th administration of the province, I am certain that they will continue in the mission and ideals set forth by our illustrious founders. I congratulate them again on 100 years.

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 in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Labor Caucus comes today to oppose the Trump administration's unlawful and unconstitutional attacks on Federal workers.

Our Federal workforce has the experience and expertise that America needs. We must protect the public. The air that we breathe, the water we drink, the medicine we take, and the food that we eat hangs in the balance.

This fight is too important. We cannot allow the Trump administration to replace a competitive merit system with a political spoils system. That is why we will keep fighting in Congress and the courts. I have my colleagues with me today who have come to express their concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Representative Sanchez.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. McClain Delaney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congressman for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Brown.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his words.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

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

Mr. Speaker, a few hours ago, I stood with members of unions, employees at the Department of Labor, and people walking down the street who saw what we were doing and wanted to join in and support the cause.

As I stood out there and spoke in favor of the efforts they were making to be heard, to protect their jobs and protect their ability to work for the American people, it reminded me of my father who had worked in that same building four decades ago until he was forced out during the Reagan administration.

To my colleagues who were there today, I thank them for joining. To the employees who were out there, I say this: I lived through what you are going through right now and I understand. For that reason, I recommit myself to working hard to protect your rights, to make sure that you don't get forced out of government, even though you haven't done anything wrong.

You have the experience and the expertise to do the work that the American people need, and we want to make sure that you have a chance to continue to do that.

I thank the Congressional Labor Caucus as well for standing up and making sure that we continue to fight here in Congress to protect their rights.

Lastly, I thank all of those people out there, whether they are union members or attorneys or employees, who are fighting every day to get their point across and make sure that we are heard by the Trump administration. Thank you for what you are doing. I urge you to continue to do the work that you are doing because it is making a difference.

The Trump administration has made many moves. Many of them have been, in my view, unlawful and unconstitutional, especially the ones that are impacting the employee rights that these government employees have earned over the decades, like my father who joined the Department of Labor after his service in the Air Force. They deserve to be treated fairly, with respect, and with recognition of the legal rights that they deserve to have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 4199, the JUDGES Act.

I appreciate the comments that have come from the Republican side this morning, Chairman Jordan in particular. We have had a chance to pass bipartisan legislation out of that committee. In fact, a couple of those bills have been mine, cosponsored with Republican Wesley Hunt. I know we can get it done. I know we can work in a bipartisan fashion and get legislation out of the committee when we choose to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the idea behind this bill was to take the politics out of judicial nominations and selections. I think it is pretty clear. I think everyone would agree that this system has been broken for some time.

The Republicans point to the Bork nomination. On the Democratic side, we look at what happened with Merrick Garland and his Supreme Court nomination, which was blocked. He had to wait almost a year and wasn't even given a hearing during that time.

Then, after that, Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed by the Senate in about a 3-week period, if I recall correctly, even though that happened just before the election and President Biden would have been in place to make the selection for the Supreme Court at that time.

This bill was aimed at trying to get around that and take the politics out of the selection process by having the decision made with respect to the passage of the legislation before we knew who the President was going to be. I thought that was a good way to go. I didn't cosponsor this bill, frankly, because I was a little worried that we would end up in exactly the place where we are today.

After the election was held, even though this bill came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in June and was passed unanimously in the Senate in August, the House Judiciary Committee had several markups in September and August, so we could have taken the bill up then, but it never happened.

In fact, it didn't happen until after the election and President Trump was selected. Guess what happened then. Now that we are at the eleventh hour, we didn't even bother to have the committee markup process happen. My colleagues brought it straight to the floor and are now asking us to vote for it today on this expedited basis now that Republicans know who is going to win.

Mr. Speaker, we know how to do bipartisan legislation. Mr. Issa, the gentleman on the other side, I know has done excellent bipartisan legislation, working with members of this committee on the Democratic side, and he has a long history of doing that. I think we can replicate that again.

Today, I ask that we not pass this bill. I ask my colleagues to vote against it. Let's go back to the drawing board. Let's take another crack at making sure that we do this in a bipartisan way.

I agree that we need more judges. In fact, the courthouse that I practiced in, D.C. Superior Court, is short 10 judges. We need them there. We need them in other courts that I practiced in. We need them all over the country, but let's do it in the right way.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know how to do this the right way. The American people want us to do it the right way. We know the judicial nomination selection process has been broken for some time. This could be a way to take a step in the right direction for fixing that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' today, and let's get back to the drawing board and find a way to work together in a bipartisan fashion, yielding an apolitical result.

Elections have consequences. Mr. Trump is going to have his chance to put nominees on the court, for sure, but let's try to do it in a way that looks out over time and makes it more equitable over time so that we can have a balanced judiciary that the people believe in and have confidence in and don't feel that it is political and partisan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a true American hero, Lieutenant George T. McCree, III, from Clinton, Maryland. Lt. McCree's service to our Nation and to this Capitol deserves our highest praise and recognition.

In his various roles with the United States Capitol Police, Lt. McCree protected not only this hallowed institution, but also the principles it represents: democracy, justice, and opportunity. He served in many capacities here on the Hill including as a dispatcher, special agent, instructor, sergeant, and lieutenant. Those who worked alongside him remember his professionalism, his quiet strength, and his unshakeable commitment to ensuring that the Capitol remained a beacon of freedom and governance. Lt. McCree's story reminds us that the legacy of those who serve is not just written in the battles they fight, but also in the lives they touch and the barrier they break. As we stand here today, in a building he has protected, let us remember his myriad contributions. I know that even as Lt. McCree retires from the United States Capitol Police, that he will continue to serve his community and our region as an involved citizen, parent and proud military veteran.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9563, the Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act.

I am proud to partner with my co-lead and my friend from Texas, Congressman Wesley Hunt, on this important legislation.

I also thank Ranking Member Nadler and Representatives Issa, Fitzgerald, Lee, and Johnson for their support, as well.

In response to Putin's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the United States imposed numerous sanctions and export controls on Russia.

The Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act would protect American companies that are targeted by Russian litigants seeking damages resulting from good faith compliance with these sanctions.

Unlike the United Kingdom and the European Union, the U.S. Federal law

does not currently protect companies complying with U.S. sanctions and export controls from litigation. Because of this, some Russian entities subjected to sanctions have sued American companies in Russian courts, resulting in significant financial penalties to American businesses in certain cases.

This bill would prevent Russian entities from seeking relief for these claims in Federal court, thereby ensuring American companies are not punished for their good faith compliance with U.S. sanctions.

Additionally, this bill does not interfere with or limit the rights, remedies, or causes of action available to victims of international terrorism.

This commonsense legislation would protect American companies and ensure Russia is held accountable for its illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support passage of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9151, the Protecting American Industry and Labor from International Trade Crimes Act.

As the complexities of international trade intensify, abusive practices and circumvention of trade rules escalate commensurately. Trade crimes impair our economy, disadvantage our workers, disrespect our consumers, and offend our national sensibilities.

To halt these practices, we must reinforce America's capacity to identify, investigate, and interdict these crimes and empower the Department of Justice to prosecute the perpetrators.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to co-lead and be an original cosponsor of H.R. 9151, which is bipartisan legislation that would achieve these objectives.

I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Representatives Hinson, Krishnamoorthi, Moolenaar, and all the other co-leads and cosponsors, for joining together to confront this challenge.

I especially appreciate my colleagues' receptivity to my suggestions about the trade crime unit's structure, concentrating on a national team based at Main Justice with the ability to deploy experts, as needed, to ports of entry around the country where trade crimes are occurring.

By focusing resources at Main Justice, we will expand our core competencies in confronting these crimes nationwide so that we will retain the upper hand, even if perpetrators redirect their activities to a different location in the United States.

This bill would establish a trade crimes unit at DOJ to take aim against a litany of crimes that are prevalent in international trade, including crimes resulting from products made by use of forced labor, sellers abusing the de minimis exemption, foreign exporters evading duties and tariffs by shipping products through third-party nations, and products that violate safety and health rules.

By creating and funding a trade crimes unit at DOJ, this bill would equip our country with expert investigators and attorneys who are dedicated to safeguarding our people, our jobs, and our economy.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6826, a bill to designate the visitor and education center at Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine as the Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and Education Center.

This is a well-deserved honor for Senator Sarbanes.

He played a key role in securing the Federal funding for the visitor center at Fort McHenry. Fort McHenry is an important historic site. Thanks to Senator Sarbanes, visitors have access to exhibits and resources to further their education about the fort and its key importance in the War of 1812.

Beyond his work at Fort McHenry, Senator Sarbanes was a giant, both in the United States Senate and in the State of Maryland.

About 30 years ago this month, I had the honor of joining the staff and serving as counsel to Senator Paul Sarbanes during the Whitewater investigations. I had watched him during the Watergate hearings when I was a young man. I was one of those strange kids who came home from school and put on the hearings. We didn't have C-SPAN yet, so this was my first chance to actually see Congress in action. The two people who stood out for me were Barbara Jordan and Paul Sarbanes.

He was a great boss and a great mentor for me, and I wouldn't be here today in the House of Representatives without his influence, his guidance, and his assistance to me and my career.

It was a tremendous privilege to work for him. It is a tremendous privilege to be able to speak on his behalf today, and I ask all of my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.