Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of my bill, the Department of Homeland Security Policy Issuance Review Act, H.R. 6231.

DHS has over 800 Departmentwide policies. While many of these policies relate to internal management functions of the Department, others provide critical guidance for employees on issues such as use of force by law enforcement officers, the personal and professional use of social media, and the ethical code of conduct.

The Department has a requirement that all policies be reviewed every 2 years. However, a recent review by the Committee on Homeland Security found that DHS rarely met this deadline, and some foundational policies had not received meaningful review since their issuance.

My bill addresses this shortcoming by making the Department's policy issuance and review process a formal responsibility of the DHS Under Secretary for management.

My bill also provides Congress with greater transparency into how and when DHS updates policies by requiring the Department to provide Congress an annual briefing on policies issued, reviewed, and canceled. My bill also requires DHS to inform Congress on its staffing needs to help ensure the Department has the resources needed to review and revise its policies in a timely manner.

H.R. 6231 is necessary to ensure that Congress has greater visibility into how the Department is managing its policy issuance program and to prevent any lengthy delays in the review and revision of critical departmental documents.

In closing, I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for cosponsoring this bill, Representatives Clarke, Bishop of North Carolina, and Ezell. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee for passing this legislation out of committee unanimously. Finally, I thank DHS staff, who provided valuable insight and feedback on the Department's policy review process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the Producing Advanced Technologies for Homeland Security Act.

Other transaction authority, or OTA, is a vital tool that enables DHS to more quickly obtain cutting-edge, emerging technologies that address specific operational needs.

For example, DHS has used OTA to fund research and development of digital IDs that people can store on their phone and advanced technology to improve the detection of explosive materials at airport checkpoints.

This bipartisan bill also provides for increased transparency into the Department's use of OTA by requiring DHS to notify the public and Congress when it uses the authority to enter into agreements worth over $1 million or for agreements involving artificial intelligence.

A lapse in DHS' authority would impede the Department's ability to rapidly develop solutions for border security, aviation security, and other critical homeland security concerns.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago when OTA did briefly lapse, that is exactly what happened. DHS was forced to delay or stop 48 projects.

DHS estimates that if OTA lapses again next week, 77 planned and underway projects would be halted or delayed.

A potential halt in OTA would be inefficient, wasteful, and potentially harmful to the security of our homeland.

In closing, I thank my colleague, Congressman Guest, for sponsoring this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the GAO Database Modernization Act would amend the Congressional Review Act to require Federal agencies to report to the GAO certain information about agency rules that are made ineffective due to an agency action or other reason.

The Congressional Review Act, or CRA, requires an agency to submit a report to both Houses of Congress and to GAO whenever it promulgates a rule. This reporting requirement enables Congress to be kept regularly informed of rulemaking activity by all administrative agencies.

GAO has created a publicly accessible database which tracks all rules submitted by the agencies. However, agencies do not currently report updates, suspensions, or alterations of rules to GAO unless any modifications are part of a newly promulgated regulation.

To increase transparency, this legislation amends the CRA to require agencies to submit a report to GAO on rules that are revoked, suspended, amended, or otherwise made ineffective.

While I do not oppose this legislation, I do note that I have concerns with the underlying Congressional Review Act, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to examine whether the law is operating as intended.

The CRA, which provides a fast-track process whereby Congress can overturn an agency regulation, could be misused to undermine lifesaving regulations to protect public health and safety.

Regulations take significant time, resources, public input, and expertise to craft, but the CRA allows narrow, partisan majorities in Congress to do away with them without any of the deliberative processes that went into making them.

Since the CRA also prohibits an agency from issuing another rule ``in substantially the same form'' without congressional authorization, it allows Congress to tie an agency's hands well into the future.

I hope this legislation is a modest improvement to oversight and transparency, but I hope that this is just the beginning of a larger conversation about the CRA and its impact on the regulatory process.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, although I hope that we can engage in a broader conversation about the Congressional Review Act, I appreciate that this bill provides additional transparency into the regulatory process.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 670, the IMPACTT Human Trafficking Act, is bipartisan legislation that has a dual purpose. It would establish the program within the DHS' Homeland Security Investigation unit, or HSI. It would also codify and expand the HSI Victim Assistance Program.

By establishing the IMPACTT program, this bill would ensure that outreach and training are available to HSI agents, forensic interviewers, survivor assistance specialists, task force officers, and other partners who work with survivors of human trafficking.

This work can be extremely taxing, exposing these individuals to the trauma of those they are working to help. By ensuring that these individuals receive support, such as through training to help recognize burnout and secondary traumatic stress, this legislation would help them be more effective, reduce turnover, and ensure that they can continue the important work of fighting human trafficking and assisting survivors.

The second component of this legislation would enhance the HSI Victim Assistance Program to ensure that every human trafficking survivor identified by HSI is assigned a survivor assistance specialist and that this program provides survivors with the support they need.

Survivor assistance specialists are a critical component of HSI's survivor-centered approach to addressing human trafficking. These specialists connect survivors to resources they might need and might not otherwise be aware of, help survivors understand their investigative and prosecutorial process, and train other law enforcement and private-sector partners so that survivors receive assistance that is survivor-centered, trauma-informed, and linguistically appropriate.

Currently, only the largest HSI field offices have a victim assistance specialist, but this legislation would ensure that every HSI office with a human trafficking or child exploitation task force would have a survivor assistance specialist to carry out this important work.

The Victim Assistance Program also provides forensic interview support so that survivors are not retraumatized during investigative interviews, and this bill would ensure that more survivors receive that support.

Finally, this bill would help address the immediate needs of survivors of human trafficking by providing funds for clothing, food, transportation, hygiene products, and temporary shelter.

This benefits the survivors by promoting their safety and reducing the chances that they end up back under the control of a trafficker. It also prevents crime and future victimization by increasing the chances that survivors are willing and able to assist law enforcement in bringing the perpetrators of trafficking to justice.

As the State's attorney of Prince George's County, I saw some of the harrowing experiences survivors of human trafficking experienced. This bipartisan legislation would provide important support to help them as well as those who work with them.

I commend Senator Peters and my House colleagues who jointly led the companion to this bill: Representatives Joyce, Titus, Wagner, and Slotkin. It is truly encouraging to see a bipartisan, bicameral bill that supports the survivors of human trafficking, and I hope we can all work together on more bipartisan legislation like this in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, S. 670, the IMPACTT Human Trafficking Act, would enable more survivors to participate in the investigation and prosecution of the crimes committed against them and prevent future trafficking crimes. I support this bipartisan legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my fellow Democrats and I strongly support the intent of this bill, which is to reduce our reliance on global adversaries and build up an industrial manufacturing base in the United States by prohibiting DHS from procuring batteries from certain Chinese companies.

I am grateful the committee included Ranking Member Thompson's amendment to the original bill, which expands the number of companies subject to the prohibition. In addition to the six Chinese companies named in the original bill, Ranking Member Thompson's amendment expands the prohibition to include any companies using Uyghur forced labor identified by the Secretary of Defense as Chinese military companies and engaging in activities contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, according to the Department of Commerce.

I also thank the committee for including Representative Suozzi's amendment, which requires DHS to produce a report on the potential impacts and costs associated with carrying out this bill before the prohibition goes into effect. The report will help DHS and Congress manage any unanticipated negative consequences from this bill.

While these amendments have made the bill better, there are lingering concerns, including how a ban on Chinese-made batteries will impact DHS' ability to buy American-made electric vehicles, since most American EV producers use Chinese-sourced batteries.

The bill could also further be improved by requiring DHS to identify ways to foster job creation and economic growth here at home and ensure the inclusion of economically disadvantaged individuals and small businesses when purchasing batteries.

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

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

Republicans and Democrats alike recognize the threat posed by China and stand unified in defense of our national and homeland security.

H.R. 8631 is imperfect, but it is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

H.R. 8663, the Detection Equipment and Technology Evaluation to Counter the Threat of Fentanyl and Xylazine Act is a critical piece of legislation that empowers the DHS Science and Technology Directorate to enhance the ability of all levels of law enforcement to detect and disrupt illicit substances.

This bipartisan bill, which is cosponsored in the House by my colleagues Congressmen Lou Correa and Don Davis, was initially introduced by Senators Cornyn, Ossoff, Lankford, and Sinema this past spring.

The bill mandates the development of advanced technologies, such as portable drug detectors that require minimal sample handling, equipment capable of separating complex drug mixtures into identifiable components, and the use of artificial intelligence to identify emerging threats.

These innovations are designed to improve the efficiency and accuracy of drug detection efforts, providing law enforcement with the tools they need to stay ahead of traffickers and safeguard our communities.

While this bipartisan bill is undeniably a step forward in combating the widespread issue of illicit substances like fentanyl and xylazine, it is essential to recognize that its impact goes far beyond the narrow scope of any nation's involvement, including China's. The challenges of detecting these dangerous drugs are global in nature, and the solutions proposed by this bill address a broad spectrum of threats that law enforcement faces across the United States.

This bill is primarily a response and provides comprehensive benefits in bolstering our national security and public health infrastructure. Therefore, while we strongly support the bill's objectives, we resist the effort to politicize any aspect of this critical issue, especially given the complexity and widespread nature of this action.

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

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

Republicans and Democrats alike recognize the challenges facing law enforcement in the detection of dangerous drugs like fentanyl. H.R. 8663 is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because we should have more oversight and information on the threat of tunnels going under our borders and the actions our government is taking to counter them.

Tunnels are used by transnational criminal organizations looking to make a profit, and most of the people using them are not Chinese.

Over the past 30 years, cartels have created illegal tunnels under border walls and barriers to smuggle people and drugs into this country and send out money and firearms, including assault weapons.

Since 1990, law enforcement has discovered more than 230 tunnels across U.S. borders.

These tunnels can be sophisticated. In 2019, CBP discovered a tunnel near the San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico, border that was over three-quarters of a mile long.

This bill simply creates an annual reporting requirement to keep Congress informed on the DHS' efforts to counter illicit cross-border tunnels and hold bad actors accountable.

The information this bipartisan piece of legislation requires will help inform Congress of the situation on the border and what authorities or resources might be needed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill is a step in the right direction.

Receiving information from the Department of Homeland Security on an annual basis will improve Congress' efforts to counter illicit cross- border tunnels and hold bad actors accountable.

I support this bipartisan piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this Memorial Day weekend to honor Navy Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Christopher J. Chambers and Navy Special Warfare Operator 2nd Class Nathan Gage Ingram, who tragically died during a mission in the Arabian Sea on January 11 of this year.

I knew Chris personally. He was a native of Prince George's County, Maryland, and a beloved son of the Cheverly community. He participated in the Boys and Girls Club and was a member of the Cheverly swim team.

Chris' presence as a leader impacted the lives of many, including my kids, while he coached them during their swim team participation.

He attended Bishop McNamara High School and graduated in 2009 from the University of Maryland, College Park.

Chris began his service in the United States Navy in 2012, graduating from SEAL training in 2014. A decorated servicemember, his awards include the Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medal with Combat ``C'' and three Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medals.

He is survived by his parents, Charles and Lois Chambers; his wife, Alyssa Chambers; and daughter, Kennedy Chambers.

Nathan Gage Ingram of Texas enlisted in the United States Navy in 2019 and went on to graduate from SEAL training in 2021.

As we approach this Memorial Day, let us pause to remember Chris, Nathan, and all brave servicemembers who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our Nation. We thank them for their service, and our prayers are forever with their families and their loved ones.

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

Mr. Speaker, on August 29, 2002, two deputy sheriffs in Prince George's County, Elizabeth Magruder and James Arnaud, were ambushed in the home of the shooter's family. They had been called to the house to execute a warrant, a health warrant, because the parents were concerned about the erratic behavior of their son.

Elizabeth Magruder was shot in the back of the head, and James Arnaud was shot and killed, as well. He left behind a wife, two children, and two grandchildren. She left behind a husband and a 3-year-old son.

I had just been elected State's attorney in Prince George's County, but I hadn't even been sworn in yet. One of my first duties was to attend the funerals for both of them. My first memorial service during Police Week was in their honor.

Therefore, I take this very seriously. The National Police Week commemoration, I think, is something that is very grave, and we should treat it with great respect.

Unfortunately, ambushes like the one Magruder and Arnaud faced that day haven't ended. We just saw recently the ambush in Charlotte. Four officers were killed, and eight were shot. We have had others like that all over the country.

My thought when we had Police Week approaching was that we would approach this in a bipartisan manner. I actually reached out and worked with Congressman Hunt from Texas, and we put together a bill that was aimed at expanding the number of police officers because we know that there are shortages across the country. We know that we need to increase the pipeline so that more officers will come and take on these dangerous tasks and stand in harm's way, or stand in the gap, as the pastor said this morning.

It was a bipartisan effort. It came out of the committee by voice vote. It was passed on the floor in a similar capacity. The Senate companion bill was passed, as well. We are looking forward to that becoming the law of the land in short order.

Unfortunately, much of the legislation that has come after that has been anything but bipartisan. The legislation we are speaking to today, I am afraid, falls into that category.

When I took a look at the resolution, H. Res. 1213, I had hoped to see praise go out to our officers across the country for the work that they do and for the officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. Indeed, there are paragraphs that speak to that. Unfortunately, there are passages that don't.

My colleague from Virginia and his comments a few moments ago made some of the same kinds of comments, with respect to, for example, the defund the police argument. My Republican colleagues have concluded that ``defund the police,'' a phrase that was used several years ago, is somehow fueling the rise of crime and, in this particular instance, the death and attacks against police officers.

As I just went into a moment ago, Magruder and Arnaud were killed in 2002, over 20 years ago. We know we have been seeing deaths of officers in the line of duty for decades now. It is nothing new. To kind of casually blame it on a slogan that I am not aware of anybody in the body here today who espoused that--certainly, I didn't--to pretend that that is the reason these shootings or these killings are occurring, is, I think, unfortunate and an abuse of what this week is supposed to mean.

Now, in addition, I would say this: I just mentioned that I don't know that anybody supports the defund the police slogan from a few years ago, but we do have colleagues in the House right now, a House Republican, who has a bill, H.R. 374, to defund ATF, and we have House Republican colleagues who called for the defunding of the FBI.

The irony of that, as those of us who have worked in law enforcement know--I was a prosecutor for 12 years, 4 on the Federal level, 8 as the locally elected State's attorney--the local and Federal prosecutors work together all the time. It is critical. Sometimes they work together in task forces because they can bring the local, the State, and the Federal forces to bear and provide maximum support in protecting our communities.

Unfortunately, this piece of legislation and much of the legislation that has been discussed this week that has been offered by my Republican colleagues intentionally ignores Federal law enforcement. In fact, we had one that was marked up in my committee, the Judiciary Committee, where I offered an amendment to include Federal law enforcement. It was expressly rejected on a party-line vote by my Republican colleagues.

I have to say that the FBI, ATF, and Border Patrol put their lives on the line, too. We should respect them, as well. One of the reasons I can't support this legislation is that it really is disrespectful to those Federal officers.

The other is that, back to the defund police issue, there is a recognition in the legislation where it talks about the number of officers who died in the line of duty in 2021, 2022, and 2023. I can talk about the specific numbers in a moment when we move forward in the debate, but one provision actually notes that 378 law enforcement officers were shot in the line of duty in 2023. The one common thread between the vast majority of officers who have been killed in the line of duty, like Arnaud and Magruder, like the people who were ambushed in Charlotte, like most of the people with the names on the wall just a few blocks away from here, is they were shot.

Sadly, my Republican colleagues are unable, unwilling, un-something to take a step to address that gun violence. The resolution here speaks in terms of defunding the police as the cause of their deaths, but all of us know that the greatest threat that these officers face is not being stabbed to death. It is not being beaten to death with a slogan like defund the police. It is being shot to death.

Briefly, these are numbers from the cops working with the National Fraternal Order of Police. A total of 331 law enforcement officers were shot in the line of duty during calendar year 2022 in 267 separate shooting incidents, including 42 incidents where multiple officers were shot.

I appreciate the fact that we are going to offer resolutions to praise officers, but if we are really serious about protecting them, it is hard to ignore a data point like that. Yet, our officers have to go out there knowing that they face these threats all the time. Traffic stops are particularly dangerous, but sometimes, like for Arnaud and Magruder, officers can be ambushed in a home. Sometimes, like in Charlotte, they can be ambushed in the open air.

Taking that seriously, I think, is an important piece, yet the resolution doesn't even mention it.

I will say this, and then I will take a pause here for a moment, but there is legislation pending right now in the House of Representatives. I offered one, an assault weapons ban. I figured it might be a bridge too far for me to ask my Republican colleagues to cosponsor that, so I came up with a bill. It is called the Raise the Age Act, and it would elevate the age from 18 to 21 to purchase assault weapons.

I thought that would be a reasonable bill to offer because there was already a provision in the law for handguns. You had to be 21 to purchase a handgun. I believe that was put in place during the Reagan era.

For my bill, raising it to 21, since you have to be 21 to buy alcohol, I thought it might make sense to be 21 to buy an assault weapon, as well.

I think we have 171-plus cosponsors for that bill, but none of them are Republican, not one, even though Republicans had agreed to legislation similar to that in previous years.

I will speak to you in a moment about the resources issue, as well. In the 117th Congress, Democrats supported legislation to provide equipment to police officers. We will get into the particular numbers of that in a moment, but none of that is moving forward here in the House now, and none of it is certainly moving forward in Police Week.

I want to point out one little factoid from the COPS document that I mentioned before. It is under the heading Bullet Resistant Vests:

At least 34 officers were protected from gunshots that

struck a protective ballistic vest.

Yet, we are struggling to find a way to provide additional support and equipment for officers to help them stay safe on the street. That is what we ought to be doing during Police Week, and to the extent we are going to talk in terms of resolutions in support of officers, let's strip out the political nonsense. The defund the police stuff really has no place in helping to protect police officers and make them safe.

As I mentioned a moment ago, it is a slap in the face the way these legislative provisions have been proposed to always exclude Federal law enforcement. I know you guys have issues on the other side about some of them, but I think this isn't the time or the place to express it in that way. Federal law enforcement deserves the same kind of respect, the same kind of appreciation, the same kind of protection that local and State law enforcement officers do.

I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. We have had other resolutions that have come through before, and we have urged them to oppose them, as well. I am going to urge my colleagues on the other side after this vote is over--and you are in the majority, so you can move this kind of stuff whether it really makes a difference or not. Hopefully, after we get past this moment, we can actually sit down and get back to the type of legislation that I worked on with Congressman Hunt that can really make a difference to help make police officers safer, to help get more police officers on the street, and to praise all of them for the great work that they do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have got to say that I am deeply shocked and offended by the statements that were just made, especially regarding me, but the larger context, too.

The gentleman from Minnesota read a quote that he attributed to me, and it is a statement I made, but it was about the killing of Tyre Nichols.

Tyre Nichols was the gentleman in Tennessee who was beaten to death over a period of 10 to 15 minutes by I believe it was six police officers. In fact, I remember watching the video, and there were multiple videos because they had different angles. One of the officers who had been beating him got tired and stepped away so he could catch his breath and then came back to continue beating him.

I had never seen anything like it. I was shocked.

I had cases when I was the State's attorney where police officers used excessive force, and I prosecuted those cases. In some cases, we convicted those individuals.

I guess my colleague from Minnesota thought that the beating death of Mr. Nichols was good policing, but keep something in mind. The chief of the police of that department fired those officers because he recognized that that had crossed the line that good police officers recognize and follow every day, under every circumstance, and in every situation.

I thought that is what we were going to honor this Police Week. To sort of hold up the Tyre Nichols scenario as an example of what police officers are supposed to be doing during Police Week is insane. I can't believe it, but that is what the gentleman did.

Let me say this. It is important for us to make sure that we walk and chew gum at the same time. We want to honor good policing, for sure, because every community needs it. We need police officers who go out and respond to calls for robberies, shootings, or whatever. We need detectives who respond in homicide and rape prosecutions and investigations at the local, State, and Federal levels. We definitely need it, but even they have recognized over time that the bad apples, and the ones in Tyre Nichols' case were clearly not just bad apples but about as bad as you can get, have to be separated out because it is important for the police to police themselves. I know it is hard, but we have to make sure that they do it.

The gentleman mentioned body cameras a moment ago. Guess why we have body cameras. That was one of the innovations that was made to address excessive force. Guess what. One of the things that has led to is better policing.

When I first ran for State's attorney in Prince George's County, one of the issues I ran on was videotaping interrogations, and I wrote an op-ed. It was titled ``Safeguards for the Innocent.'' I was joined by the former head of the homicide unit here in Washington, D.C. We wrote it together.

The reason we wrote it was because we knew that if these investigations were videotaped, it would address the flurry of false confessions that had been made in Prince George's County. We knew they were false because they were proven to be innocent by DNA evidence. We knew they were false confessions, so we made this change to try to address that.

Guess what happened. Initially, the police officers opposed it, but the good detectives realized quickly that the videotapes showed the great work that they were doing and that they were going about it the right way. The juries appreciated that, too, because then we could just bring it in, set up the video, play the tape, and the jurors could see for themselves and make their decision. That is good policing.

I think it is important for us to make sure that we hold police officers, just like we do prosecutors or any other law enforcement profession, to a basic level of following the law even as they try to protect us from misconduct.

I guess this is kind of par for the course now for my Republican colleagues. On the January 6 piece, for example, we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are calling the perpetrators of January 6, the rioters of January 6, hostages and patriots. The majority is calling the people who participated in it patriots, the ones who had been prosecuted, convicted, and jailed. Even though I think over 900 of them pled guilty, others were convicted after jury trials.

They have had their day in court. They have had their due process. They were rightly convicted and held accountable. They have been sentenced to jail, but we still have my colleagues on the other side of the aisle calling them patriots and hostages, even though five officers died as a result of January 6 and many others were injured, too.

Mr. Speaker, this is Police Week, and I am hoping that we can get back to trying to do things in a bipartisan way here, but based on what I heard from my colleague from Minnesota, that is not likely to happen.

It is important to make sure that we do this: We have to make sure that we recognize the challenges we face in law enforcement. I support law enforcement, as I mentioned earlier. We have legislation to try to increase the number of police officers who are going to be out there on the street because we need more police officers on the street. The George Floyd Act, which was referenced, I think, a minute ago, is aimed at making sure that, in addition to having more on the street, they do the job in the right way.

When I first got elected, we didn't have iPhones very often. We would prosecute these cases and present the evidence to the jury in excessive force cases, and many times, the jury would reject it.

One of the transformations that happened with the iPhone, though, was that people, standing there on the street while excessive force was taking place, videotaped it, and then they were able to bring that to the police. Additionally, cases that probably wouldn't have been charged previously were not only charged but led to convictions.

The George Floyd scenario, the person who that legislation is named after, is a paradigm example. Derek Chauvin was there with his knee on George Floyd's neck for 9\1/2\ minutes. The police report that Derek Chauvin and his other colleagues on the street filled out made no mention of all of that, but the videos made it clear that Derek Chauvin had basically just strangled him to death with his knee. He was held accountable, and the other officers around him, who basically did nothing while it was happening, were held accountable, too.

Maybe my colleague from Minnesota had that in mind when he made some of the statements he just said a few minutes ago. I sure hope not because officers who do that belong in jail. They shouldn't have a badge, a gun, and a license to kill. That has to be given to the people we can trust to enforce the law in the right way.

For the vast majority of police officers, that is how they do it, and that is why we appreciate and respect them. When they cross the line, I hope we don't have people like the gentleman from Minnesota act like that is okay because it is not. We have to hold them accountable.

A minute ago, I mentioned serious legislation. It is a little surprising to me that we are having such a debate like this over legislation that is just a resolution basically. It speaks only of defund the police and the like.

The Democrats in the last Congress, for example, passed meaningful reforms to support police even though, in many instances, they were opposed by Republicans. Last Police Week, we passed H.R. 6943, the Public Safety Officer Support Act, which extended death benefits to law enforcement officers with PTSD. It happened over the objection of 17 Republicans, including 4 on the Judiciary Committee.

Last Police Week, H.R. 2992, the Traumatic Brain Injury and Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder Law Enforcement Training Act, passed, as well. Twenty-one Republicans objected to that also.

We keep passing legislation, or we did when the Democrats were in control, to actually provide additional resources and benefits to police officers who get injured in the line of duty. I think that is important for us to continue to do, but our colleagues aren't doing it.

Republicans are bringing this political legislation, and it got really political a minute ago when the gentleman from Minnesota was up there, frankly, kind of ranting about things he attributed to me, which I think was wrong and incorrect, but, more importantly, things the gentleman keeps trying to attribute to Democrats and the change in policy.

Mr. Speaker, here are a couple of other quick points about some of the things my colleague said, like the decline in police officers. I have to be clear. One of the things we have in the bill I cosponsored with Mr. Hunt was a report that is going to study this because I think it is going to help address a lot of the misinformation that is coming out on the other side about why we are having some shortages.

They are saying it is based on the defund the police slogan, but the roots of these shortages started many years ago. In some instances, in some jurisdictions, we just have a cycle of people who are coming up for their retirements at their 20-year and 30-year marks. In any event, let's try to make sure we get the evidence and the data so we can correct those challenges.

It is not just fixing a slogan on the street. It is a dangerous job. It doesn't pay as much as it should. Many of the officers or potential officers find that they can have jobs that pay as much but don't have to work as hard. For example, in a Homeland Security Committee hearing, I remember the Border Patrol agents testifying that they are having trouble retaining officers at the border, not because of a defund the police slogan but because they can leave the job and make more money doing other things and stay in the same community, and it is less taxing than being an officer.

If we are honest about it, we can come up with better solutions to try to retain them, like maybe paying them more money, but if we keep spreading rhetoric about this is defund the police, we won't fix the problem and get more officers.

If money is the issue, and of course it is a factor, then just standing here and haranguing about defunding the police doesn't fix it. We have to find ways to raise the salaries and help attract and retain more of them to go out on the street.

I am going to stop with this, for the moment. I first went into law enforcement in 1990 as a prosecutor, and I took it seriously then.

The gentleman on the other side is accusing Democrats of not being serious about police. We have former police officers here on this side of the aisle who are Democrats, and I know them across the country. Not only that but every time I have run for office, I have been endorsed by the FOP in my jurisdiction. It is a little unfortunate to sort of use those sorts of attacks to justify the resolution that is proposed here.

Let's get serious. Let's get back to doing things that actually will address the problems and retain more police officers, recruit more police officers, and address the concerns that we have with respect to keeping safe on the street.

Yes, gun violence is a big factor in the dangers that they face on the streets. I think it is kind of hard to be serious about protecting them if we are not even going to discuss that.

My colleague from Virginia mentioned that he thinks we want to make sure that they are 21 because if you wait until they are 21, it undermines their Second Amendment rights. I appreciate that, but I don't agree with that take.

Let me say this: Ghost guns, I haven't come across anybody who thinks those make sense. They are intentionally designed to avoid prosecution. They don't have any numbers on them in order to avoid being tracked in the event of use for a criminal enterprise. The use of ghost guns in crimes on the street is exploding.

We need to get our Republican colleagues to help us support legislation like that. We are having trouble finding it, but today would be the day.

By the way, talking about killings on the street, it is handguns primarily, as I just mentioned a few minutes ago, that are leading to officers' deaths on the streets. If we are really serious about protecting police officers, can't we do something to try to address that? Can't we do something to try to limit the number of guns on the street?

Also, I know that the argument is going to be Democrats are soft on crime and all of that, but remember, a lot of the people who commit these crimes don't have prior offenses. The guy who killed the two deputies in my jurisdiction, Arnaud and Magruder, didn't have any prior record. He had mental health issues.

We can't just assume that all of these issues revolve around people who have long criminal records because they don't, and many times police officers are killed on the street by people with no prior records.

Let's try to address all of these issues in a serious way, in a bipartisan way, because that is the way to actually help keep our police officers safe on the street.

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

Mr. Speaker, no Member of Congress questions the difficulty, danger, or stress associated with serving in law enforcement. We are grateful for each and every Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement officer, agent, or employee working daily, putting their lives on the line to keep us safe in every corner and territory of this Nation.

This week we should come together to honor their dedication to their jobs and communities, lift up the names of those officers and agents who gave their lives in service, and wrap our arms around their loved ones left behind.

Sadly, Republicans have chosen partisanship over bipartisanship at this time. I, therefore, must oppose H. Res. 1213, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

I must say that Police Week, when I was a prosecutor at the Federal level and at the State level, was something I looked forward to. I worked closely with police officers, local, State, and Federal. They worked together as brothers and sisters in coordination and cooperation with prosecutors. In many instances, they had task forces where the Federal and local worked together, knowing that that was the way that made them most effective.

It was deeply disappointing to see the bills that came through this week that are supposed to be honoring police officers for Police Week. Some of these came through the Judiciary Committee beforehand, which I sit on, and so I raised objections at the time with respect to this legislation, which was ignored.

It is with a heavy heart, frankly, that I rise today because, as one of the Republican speakers a few minutes ago noted, I think 370 police officers have been shot. It is clear that one of the greatest dangers police officers face on the street is from guns.

The irony is that the legislation that the Republicans have proposed do nothing about guns. In fact, they don't even mention them in most cases, which is really shocking.

Now, my colleague from Massachusetts just mentioned a few minutes ago the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, H.R. 715, and he noted that the sponsor of that is a Republican, but he is the only Republican to join this bill. The other 207 cosponsors are all Democrats, and I think that speaks volumes about where the Republicans are these days on this kind of issue.

H.R. 2870, the Raise the Age Act, which is aimed at bolstering public safety by raising the age for individuals to buy assault weapons from 18 to 21, is commonsense legislation. It is already 21 for handguns. Why wouldn't we do it for assault weapons? We don't have one Republican cosponsor for that legislation.

Another example is H.R. 4992, that goes to ghost guns. The issue about ghost guns is that they are totally untraceable firearms, so they have become the weapon of choice for criminals across the country, blue States, red States, Democratic and Republican jurisdictions alike. There are zero Republican cosponsors for that legislation.

It is with great disappointment that we come here today and speak about Police Week, and we ought to be doing things to protect police officers from dangers on the street, but absolutely nothing that is in the legislative package that is being proposed would do that.

One last point before I yield back. With respect to the defund language, none of that is pending legislation with respect to police in the Congress right now. The only defund language that I have seen right now is defund ATF and FBI.

Madam Speaker, those are sponsored by Republicans. The defund ATF bill is one sentence long. When I raised the question with the gentleman who proposed it in the committee, I said: How in the world is that supposed

to work? How would you defund the entire ATF knowing that we have got gun cases pending there now?

I have the same question about the FBI. International prosecutions, cartels, and the like, you would just shut them down like that? That is what those bills would do. Talk about being irresponsible. That is what that proposal is right now. Let's get serious.

We are facing major challenges. By the way, crime is going down in cities across the country. You mentioned the 2019 statistics. You stay with 2019 because violent crime has been going down in jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia this year, as well.

Let's get serious. Let's focus on doing things that really help protect police officers and make the most out of Police Week.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 546, the Recruit and Retain Act. H.R. 3325, the identical House version of the bill that I am co- leading with Congressman Hunt of Texas, passed the Judiciary Committee last week.

The Recruit and Retain Act addresses two key goals that are central to Police Week, recruiting young people who want to become law enforcement officers for the right reasons, and relieving the financial burden of recruiting and retaining law enforcement officers by assisting law enforcement agencies with the costs of the recruitment and application process.

The Recruit and Retain Act is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, National Sheriffs' Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, National Association of Police Organizations, Major County Sheriffs of America, and several other organizations.

Recruiting and retaining highly trained law enforcement professionals is of the utmost importance. Our ability to attract and develop the best, brightest, and most compassionate and dedicated men and women of diverse backgrounds is vital to the health and well-being of our Nation.

Keeping our residents safe and promoting better community relations will lead to safer streets and better policing. We must incentivize hiring and retaining the people who will do the best job of safeguarding our communities through wise use of the most up-to-date law enforcement techniques.

For quite some time, law enforcement agencies nationwide have been facing a challenge in their efforts to maintain an appropriately staffed police force. Due in part to changing demographics, they have experienced high rates of resignations and retirements of law enforcement officers.

The 2021 Police Executive Research Forum Workforce Survey of law enforcement agencies revealed a 5 percent decrease in the overall hiring rate, an 18 percent increase in resignations, and a 45 percent increase in retirements from responding agencies.

The Recruit and Retain Act would establish a new model for the productive recruitment of future law enforcement officers who want to join police forces for the right reasons. Enhancing recruitment of qualified law enforcement officers who are dedicated to the highest principles of policing may also reduce an agency's attrition and resignations over the long term.

Through the bill's Pipeline Partnership Program, students will benefit from age-appropriate teachings about the rule of law, the value of law in an ordered society, and the centrality of the law enforcement and judicial systems, including the role that law enforcement officers play in maintaining these values within our society.

With age-appropriate introductions to the concepts of law and its importance coming from law enforcement officers and teachers in a friendly setting, some students may choose to join law enforcement, while others may become inspired to pursue careers as lawyers or public servants in other areas of government.

An introduction of law enforcement through schools would, in some ways, be similar to a Junior ROTC program for older students who may become interested in law enforcement careers without a contractual commitment. It could increase the number of candidates entering the law enforcement recruitment officer pipeline for desirable reasons.

The Pipeline Partnership Program would initially be deployed in a small number of jurisdictions, similar to a pilot program, and its positive outcomes could subsequently encourage other jurisdictions to replicate it.

The Recruit and Retain Act will also reduce the administrative costs of recruiting and retaining officers by assisting with the expenses of application fees, such as those for background checks, psychological evaluations, and testing. Funds would be made available to defray the costs of hiring applicants and rehiring officers, taking the burden off of strained law enforcement agencies.

Additionally, our bill directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study to better understand the factors that influence recruitment and loss of law enforcement agencies. This study will also recommend practices that will help reduce barriers to addressing these issues.

Importantly, the GAO study will assess recruitment, retention, and retirement factors experienced by law enforcement agencies nationwide in communities of all sizes, including those in rural areas which, in some contexts, receive less attention when law enforcement policies are evaluated and developed.

To facilitate those initiatives, rather than allocate additional funds, the Recruit and Retain Act would allow jurisdictions that receive COPS grants to utilize funds from those grants for the purposes outlined in the bill, with some limits and restrictions.

The bill also includes an annual list of $3 million of COPS grant funds that can be used to connect students with law enforcement officers and agencies through the Pipeline Partnership Program. Although this is a very modest sum, it is sufficient for the creation of this program in a limited number of States and municipalities to test this concept.

By implementing these projects in limited locations across the Nation, the Recruit and Retain Act will help States and localities make informed decisions about adopting the program and its law enforcement recruitment procedures.

Madam Speaker, I thank, again, Congressman Hunt for his leadership on this legislation. It is for these reasons that I support S. 546, and I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, as well.

In closing, Madam Speaker, the Recruit and Retain Act initiatives, taken together, will serve as a de facto pilot project for many localities, large and small, urban and rural, that struggle with law enforcement recruitment and retention. Law enforcement agencies will be able to benefit from each other's experience when replicating initiatives created by this legislation's innovative solutions.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 546, the Recruit and Retain Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

As a former prosecutor who handled cases in both Federal and State courts, I worked closely with many law enforcement officers on a day- to-day basis over many years, developing strong relationships with officers who put their lives on the line on a daily basis.

In fact, my record and relationships with officers are part of the reasons I have been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police every time I have run for office. That is why, in part, I regret having to rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 106.

Traditionally, National Police Week has been recognized as a solemn, unifying occasion. It is a time when Members can come together in a bipartisan fashion to recognize and honor the men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities. However, instead of respecting the dignity of this week, some of my colleagues have decided to move forward with, frankly, political rhetoric in this resolution to satisfy partisan purposes.

This resolution amounts to a slap in the face of many Federal law enforcement officers who serve and protect us, as well. Among this resolution's flaws is it completely ignores Federal law enforcement officers who fight crime working infrequently with the local law enforcement officers whom we are discussing here today.

Many of them enforce our laws against human trafficking and drug trafficking, including the rapid rise of fentanyl, the massive flow of firearms, including ghost guns, that illegally enter our country and communities and endanger all of us.

To offer a resolution that fails to honor Federal law enforcement officers as well is just plain wrong.

I made this objection in the committee when we were having a hearing on a related bill a few weeks ago, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to my colleagues. However, in recent years, Republicans have consistently blamed the rise in violent crime on Democrats and attempted to pin the ``defend the police'' rhetoric on Democrats labeling Democrats as the party to defund the police.

Yet, a Republican colleague of ours introduced H.R. 374, the Abolish the ATF Act, a one-line bill that would do away with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He also threatened to ``defund,'' ``get rid of,'' or ``abolish'' other Federal agencies, including the FBI, CDC, and DOJ, ``if they do not come to heel.''

Another one of my Republican colleagues called for defunding the FBI, as well, and we have multiple Republican colleagues who have made similar kinds of calls to defund Federal law enforcement, even though I think all of us recognize how critical they are to protecting the United States and handling matters in conjunction with local law enforcement authorities or, in some instances, where local law enforcement authorities don't have the jurisdiction or the authority to handle a matter.

H. Con. Res. 106 endeavors to continue those efforts, unfortunately, repeating the verbatim attacks, as we heard just a moment ago, on Federal law enforcement and the Democrats, sentiments that were asserted in a different context in H. Con. Res. 40 last year, when the Democrats offered legislation for National Police Week.

This resolution claims that the defund the police movement vilifies and demonizes local law enforcement, putting them at greater risk of danger, while ignoring the Republicans' own efforts to defund law enforcement, whether by opposing grant funding that sometimes supports State and local agencies or by calling to abolish Federal agencies, as I just mentioned a moment ago.

We should be reminded that, through the American Rescue Plan, Democrats have provided the largest Federal investment in public safety in the Nation's history. $350 billion has allowed cities across the country to keep law enforcement officers on the beat and communities safer from violence. Police departments have used this funding to establish training facilities, hire more officers, and raise salaries.

Rather than playing at partisanship, like we are today, in the 117th Congress, House Democrats passed priority policing bills that extended death benefits to law enforcement officers with PTSD, provided funding to law enforcement and other first responders to improve interactions with civilians, authorized $300 million in grants for law enforcement agencies with fewer than 125 officers, made significant investments in deescalation training, and provided $100 million per year in grants to solve cold-case violent crimes, all over Republican objections.

More disappointingly, this resolution before us today continues the Republican record of devaluing the lives and contributions of the 137,000 Federal agents and officers serving in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, including the Capitol Police, who we all should recall protect us here on a daily basis.

Although H. Con. Res. 106 does not demonize specific Democratic Members or so-called leftist activists who support efforts to defund or reallocate funding for local law enforcement agencies, as H. Con. Res. 40 did last year, this resolution is similarly a missed opportunity to truly support law enforcement officers across the country and is designed, once again, to falsely paint Democrats as opponents of law enforcement.

Madam Speaker, it is for these reasons that I oppose H. Con. Res. 106, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Let's restore the dignity of Police Week by advancing truly bipartisan acclamations and support for law enforcement efforts.

Madam Speaker, in 2002, President George W. Bush proclaimed that Police Officers Memorial Day and Police Week pay tribute to the local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers who serve and protect us with courage and dedication. Since its inception, National Police Week has been meant to bring Members of Congress together, no matter their political affiliation, to acknowledge the contributions of all law enforcement professionals and honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while in the line of duty.

Whether State, local, Tribal, or Federal, we are grateful for the service of all officers, agents, and support staff who work tirelessly to protect us and keep us safe. We should be able to make that clear today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for organizing this Special Order hour.

I also join with the comments that have already been made with respect to condolences to the families of the six lives that were lost. I remember, when I heard about it that morning, there were eight, I think, missing initially. I remember praying at that time that they would survive. Even though the emergency services made immediate efforts to try and save them and blocked off the road so that no other people were going to meet that fate, I know that we have lost six at this point.

It is a sad moment, a tragic evening, and we certainly want to extend our condolences to their families and their communities. Gustavo Torres and some of the other leaders and officials in those communities recognize the impact that was had, and we certainly want to tell them that we support them and we are going to work hard to help them make it through this tragedy in every way that we can.

I also want to commend Governor Moore who has been outstanding in the way he has handled this event. The leadership he has provided has been quite impressive. He has really risen to the occasion. I knew he was a talented leader, but he has demonstrated that repeatedly during this time.

I thank the Biden administration, too, for taking immediate steps. The President himself came out I think that same day and made the commitment to make sure that the bridge got rebuilt, that the Federal Government was going to make 100 percent efforts to cover those costs, and that he was going to do everything in his power to make sure that that happened quickly, that we weren't going to wait for the litigation to take place. I think the last time there was a bridge collapse, the litigation took 10 years to resolve. Thank goodness he has decided to move it forward immediately because we need that money now. We need to rebuild it. You have heard about the economic impact on the region. I think that is certainly the case, so making initial and quick steps to make that recovery happen, I think, is critical.

I did want to say this, too. That morning, I got calls from reporters about the tragedy, and some were asking for initial responses. Some also asked me about comments that people had made with respect to the collapse of the bridge.

One candidate for Congress said DEI did this, and he called Mayor Brandon Scott ``the DEI mayor.''

One rightwing provocateur said foreign agents of the United States attacked digital infrastructures.

Another individual said: Looks deliberate to me. A cyberattack is probable. World war III has already started.

Lastly, a Utah State Representative said: This is what happens when you have Governors who prioritize diversity over the well-being and security of our citizens.

I told that reporter then, and I want to say it on the House floor now, that I thought those comments were disgusting and irresponsible. I thought it was a sad moment. I know we are having very partisan times here in the United States, and certainly here in

the House, but I think this is a moment where we need to rise above that.

I thank my Republican colleagues who just did that and are doing that just now. Andy Harris stood with us. Congressman Andy Harris stood with us yesterday. We had a press conference where we had the Biden administration present, the Governor present, and the House and Senate delegation from Maryland were all present. He was there, too, and voiced his support for full recovery of the bridge.

I say this just to end. The voices that I just mentioned a moment ago, those were not the representative voices of my colleagues here in Congress. I think they understand that this is not about red States or blue States. This is a moment where this is about the United States of America. It is times like this where we have to turn to each other and not on each other so we can rise above the tragedy and move forward together.

I know we can do better. I know we will continue to do better, and I want to commend all of those who have done better so far with this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7511, the House Republicans' unconstitutional attempt to violate the separation of powers doctrine.

While I take issue with many aspects of this bill, I am particularly concerned that this bill is a blatant effort to overturn the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling in United States v. Texas and wrongly blame the Biden administration for three decades of border enforcement challenges.

In the Texas case, States sued the Department of Homeland Security about border enforcement. Justice Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, writing for the 8-1 majority, stated that Texas did not have standing in its lawsuit against the Federal Government. He wrote:

The threshold question is whether the States have standing

under Article III to maintain this suit. The answer is no.

This bill does not change the Supreme Court's clear ruling. Determining whether States can bring suit in this type of immigration case is a power that is vested in the Federal courts, not Congress.

Justice Kavanaugh also made clear that the discretion to arrest and detain aliens is a power granted to the executive branch and that:

Executive branch does not possess the resources necessary

to arrest or remove all of the noncitizens covered by the

Federal immigration laws.

That reality is not an anomaly. It is a constant.

Kavanaugh noted, in addition, that: ``For the last 27 years . . . all five Presidential administrations have determined that resource constraints necessitated prioritization in making immigration arrests.''

That means DHS cannot detain everybody, so the executive branch, not the States, have to make choices. Unfortunately, this bill would not give DHS the resources to change that.

Instead, House Republicans rely on political stunts, like impeaching Secretary Mayorkas, even though that won't fix the problem at the border. The bipartisan Senate bill that House Republicans refuse to even debate actually would help to address these problems, but the majority won't bring that bill to the floor for a vote. If the Republicans did, it would pass. That is because we all know we need more border agents and more judges to eliminate the backlog of immigration cases.

However, the Republicans are not proposing more resources or any legislation that might truly make a difference.

This bill was not a serious attempt to address the actual border security needs and, as such, I would urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5969, the Improving Travel for Families Act. I am proud to cosponsor this bipartisan legislation with my friend and Homeland Security Committee colleague from Texas, Representative Morgan Luttrell.

This bill aims to make the CBP Global Entry program more friendly for family travel at our international airports by allowing children ages 10 or under to accompany their parent or guardian through Global Entry when clearing customs in the United States.

The bill also makes it possible for parents to schedule interviews for Global Entry for their kids as a group. It will do all of this without risking the security of children, as Global Entry approval requires multiple steps, including a background check.

As a father of six, I know how difficult the logistics can be for families traveling with young children.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan legislation that will make travel more friendly for families without compromising security.