Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4984, the D.C. Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act.

Like other members of the Maryland delegation, I believe Prince George's County and Maryland should be able to compete on a level playing field to keep the Washington Commanders, but this bill would give an unfair advantage to D.C. It is most certainly not a level playing field when one interested jurisdiction receives a free transfer of Federal Government-subsidized land.

I am not opposed to D.C. bidding to be the new home of the Washington Commanders, but its pursuit of the Commanders should be no different than its efforts to compete with Virginia for the Wizards and Capitals.

This is also a bad deal for Federal taxpayers. This bill transfers control over Federal Government property at no apparent cost to the District of Columbia so that private ownership can

build a football stadium. This is not a District of Columbia home rule issue. This is no different than any other city or State competing for a sports franchise or stadium, no different than the State of New Jersey competing with the State of New York for the Jets or the Giants.

I also do not object to the redevelopment or renovation of the current RFK campus. I think it would be outstanding to have new housing, retail use, and park space there. As a matter of fact, I live near the stadium and drive by it every day, but I do not believe a cost-free land transfer largely for stadium purposes provides the best opportunity to achieve these goals.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as we recognize National Entrepreneurship Week and Black History Month, I rise today to highlight the accomplishments and challenges of America's Black-owned small businesses.

Black business ownership is growing at the fastest pace in 30 years with the share of Black households owning a business doubling between 2019 and 2022. However, Black-owned small businesses still face distinct challenges, particularly as it relates to accessing capital, securing contracts, and navigating systemic biases within financial institutions and markets. Limited access to funding restricts the ability to scale and compete on an equal footing with their counterparts, hindering their potential for long-term success and growth.

Due to limited credit access, higher shares of Black employer businesses are forced to turn to alternative forms of financing. According to the Alliance for Entrepreneurial Equity, 49 percent of firms who pursue financing at an online lender do so because they were denied by other financial institutions.

One of my constituents who has faced these types of challenges is Tiffany Kelly, the owner and founder of House of Ketubah Bridal in Mount Rainier, Maryland. Tiffany told me that her business has been overlooked and excluded from financing opportunities. But she hasn't abandoned hope. Tiffany and her team continue to explore alternative avenues and innovative solutions to ensure that they can continue to serve their customers and the community.

I urge my colleagues to work together to solve the access to capital challenges faced by small businesses and to consider the unique needs of minority-owned businesses during Black History Month.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Not even a week after my Republican colleagues failed to advance their unconstitutional impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas, House Republicans again put critical House business on hold while they wasted precious time on another meaningless impeachment vote.

Mr. Speaker, the list of things this House majority has ignored is long and only getting longer. House Republicans have failed to pass the key bills needed to avoid a government shutdown in March.

Congress still needs to reauthorize the FAA bill to improve air travel and safety. We need to reauthorize FISA to bolster our national security.

House Republicans need to provide critical military aid to our allies in Ukraine and Israel, and the civilians in Gaza and Ukraine need lifesaving humanitarian aid as soon as possible.

House Republicans can't pass or haven't passed any of these critical bills. I am calling on my House Republican colleagues to get serious and to let us get back to doing the work the American people need us to get done.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative for yielding and allowing me to participate in celebrating Black History Month.

Mr. Speaker, this week, I will be introducing the Frederick Douglass Congressional Gold Medal Act, which would honor Frederick Douglass with a long overdue expression of appreciation and celebrate his legacy with a Congressional Gold Medal.

I am proud to offer this bipartisan legislation with my colleague, Congressman Andy Harris, whose district includes the historic birthplace of Mr. Douglass.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 130 years since his passing, Frederick Douglass' remarkable life remains a beacon of inspiration to all Americans.

Born into slavery on Maryland's Eastern Shore, Mr. Douglass overcame countless obstacles to become one of the most powerful and impactful figures in 19th century America.

Douglass was enslaved for the first two decades of his life. During this period, he taught himself to read and write, skills which would later play a critical role in his life as an abolitionist and civil rights leader.

In his twenties, Douglass escaped slavery, first to New York and then eventually settling in Massachusetts. Douglass dedicated the remainder of his life to furthering the cause of freedom for others in America.

Beginning in the 1840s, Douglass became active in the abolitionist movement, often utilizing his profound oratory and writing skills to captivate and inform his audiences.

As a writer and publisher, Frederick Douglass used the power of his written works to document the cruelty of slavery and push for abolition. He was the publisher of The North Star, a newspaper that he authored, and multiple autobiographies in which he shared the brutality of his enslavement in Maryland.

Douglass exposed the oppression of enslaved Americans, speaking powerfully at abolition conventions and meetings with civic leaders.

In 1852, Douglass delivered his famous Fourth of July address in Rochester, New York. In his speech, Douglass asked the question: What to the slave is the Fourth of July? While commending the ideals of the Founding Fathers, he also noted the hypocrisy of such ideals in relation to the treatment of enslaved Americans as he had been.

Perhaps some of Douglass' most impactful achievements came as our Nation was torn apart by the Civil War. Douglass was a key advocate in ensuring that the Civil War brought about the end of slavery in the United States.

As the war began, Douglass recruited African-American men to join the Union Army, including his own sons.

After the war, he fought for equal pay and equal treatment for African-American soldiers. This advocacy included several meetings with President Abraham Lincoln at the White House, to whom Douglass became a trusted confidant.

After the war, Douglass continued his work as a dedicated fighter for equality and the extension of the rights of the U.S. Constitution to all Americans. He was a prominent and powerful advocate for the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

One of his most powerful postwar moments came in 1876 at the dedication of the Emancipation Memorial here in Lincoln Park in Washington, D.C., where Douglass delivered the keynote address.

Later in his life, Douglass was also a public servant. He was appointed to several influential government posts, including U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia, Recorder of Deeds, and Minister to Haiti.

Frederick Douglass dedicated his life to furthering the cause of freedom in the United States. Few Americans have shaped our Nation so profoundly and permanently as Frederick Douglass. To this very day, Douglass' message and principles remain a guiding light for our country as we continue to seek fulfillment of our Nation's promise and potential for justice and equality.

Although the immeasurable impact of Frederick Douglass elevated him to the pantheon of some of the greatest Americans, he has never received a proper, official commendation from Congress for his contributions to our Nation.

If awarded, Douglass' medal would be displayed at the National Museum of

African American History and Culture right here in Washington, D.C., where Americans can view the medal and learn more about Douglass' legacy.

It is long past time for Congress to bestow this honor upon an American whose indelible impact is still felt today and will continue to be felt for generations to come. Therefore, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

The power to impeach is one of the greatest constitutional powers granted to the House of Representatives. This awesome responsibility should be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Nonetheless, House Republicans have decided to abuse that responsibility for a cheap political stunt.

House Republicans have not alleged an impeachable offense. Policy disagreements are not impeachable. Even if you strongly believe border security should be improved, Madam Speaker, that does not provide grounds to remove a Cabinet official.

That is why former Republican Secretary Michael Chertoff said that Mayorkas hasn't committed an impeachable offense. Even law professor Jonathan Turley has said that Secretary Mayorkas' alleged actions are not impeachable and fail to amount to high crimes and misdemeanors warranting his impeachment.

Republicans offered no constitutional scholars as witnesses during their two impeachment hearings, but rather relied on Republican States attorneys general's testimony, one of which didn't even mention the word ``impeachment'' in his prepared statements.

This unconstitutional impeachment process has been predetermined and unjust since it began. It will lower the constitutional bar for future impeachments, and it will not make our border more secure. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are here today to consider H.R. 3224, the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Extension Act of 2023. I commend my Republican colleague from New York for introducing this legislation.

The CWMD Office within the Department of Homeland Security plays a pivotal role in safeguarding our Nation's security by addressing the threat of weapons capable of causing harm to our communities and infrastructure.

CWMD improves our Nation's capability to plan for, detect, and guard against chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and health security threats, otherwise known as CBRN.

CWMD further enables CBRN detection programs, training, and other capabilities for State, local, Tribal, and territorial partners and provides ground support for national special security events such as Presidential inaugurations and major sporting events.

Without the support of dedicated DHS components like CWMD, terrorists could exploit the absence of comprehensive measures. It could leave the Nation vulnerable to catastrophic attacks with the potential for widespread harm, loss of life, and severe disruption to national security and public safety.

CWMD operates important programs such as Securing the Cities, which provides 14 local governments across the country with detection equipment, training, exercise support, operational and technical subject matter expertise, and programmatic support.

When CWMD was authorized in 2018, Congress included a sunset for December 21, 2023, with the idea that we could closely monitor the progress of the office. The last continuing resolution extended CWMD through February 2, 2024, but the office needs a longer extension to ensure that its programs and staff have continuity.

With the sunset quickly approaching, the Committee on Homeland Security has worked in a bipartisan fashion to extend CWMD by 2 years with H.R. 3224.

This bipartisan bill will also provide a report to Congress regarding a CWMD employee engagement action plan and strategy to improve morale within the office, which is important given that there have been significant workforce and morale issues. CWMD is consistently ranked low in morale, according to a survey done by the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government.

The bill further requires the Government Accountability Office to brief Congress regarding CWMD and how it is carrying out its mission. While Congress will continue to provide oversight of CWMD and, in the future, provide a permanent authorization for the office, passage of H.R. 3224 is a positive step.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3224, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter), the ranking member of the Emergency Management and Technology Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security and an original cosponsor of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3224 is crucial for sustaining our Nation's capabilities to counter chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats.

The expertise provided by CWMD is essential in the fight against weapons of mass destruction.

Passage of this legislation is vital to maintaining our preparedness and ensuring the security of the Nation against the evolving challenges posed by bad actors.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my House colleagues to support H.R. 3224, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this solemn occasion to urge my colleagues to take the rare step of exercising the expulsion clause of the United States Constitution.

Congressman George Santos has failed to uphold the principles of scrupulous, selfless public service. He has violated the law and he has violated this body's ethics rules.

As a member of the Ethics Committee, I can report that the evidence against him is substantial and damning. I can also report that there was no rush to judgment.

During the course of our investigation, the Ethics Committee authorized 37 subpoenas, issued 43 requests for information, obtained and reviewed over 172,000 pages of documents, interviewed over 40 witnesses, and reviewed relevant public information, including the Federal indictments in the criminal case in New York.

Our bipartisan investigation revealed that he laundered $50,000 of his campaign donors' money through two personal accounts and spent it on himself on designer clothes, a car payment, a credit card, and personal debts.

He cheated the government out of $24,000 in unemployment benefits during the pandemic when he was earning a salary of $120,000 from an investment firm.

He lied and said he loaned his unsuccessful campaign for Congress over $80,000, and repaid himself for the fictitious loan, netting a personal profit of $27,000.

In the second--this time successful campaign for Congress--he lied again, this time to the tune of $500,000.

He also transferred and hid from the FEC a sum of $50,000 from his congressional campaign to his State Political Action Committee. He spent over $40,000 of campaign funds on personal expenses, like expensive travel and meals, casino stays, an adult website, and cosmetic procedures, personally enriching himself at his donors' expense--all of this on top of his constant lying about his resume and his family history.

There are charges of fraud, identity theft, credit card skimming, and swindling a disabled veteran.

In short, the evidence of criminal and ethical violations is extensive and overwhelming.

Mr. Santos has complained that he has not received due process. He also suggested that he was unaware of the fraud and misconduct, apparently trying to shift the blame to his treasurer and others.

Mr. Santos worked closely with his treasurer, who pled guilty just last month to her role in this scheme. The text messages they exchanged about the fake loans show that he was a knowing and active participant in the misconduct.

The campaign staffers we interviewed as part of our investigation also made clear that he was certainly aware of the campaign's financial abuses.

In addition, his campaign consultants gave him a 141-page vulnerability report that detailed many of his frauds and lies. They demanded that he drop out of the race. When he refused--just like he is doing today--three of his staffers quit in protest.

The Ethics Committee also offered Mr. Santos a chance to meet with us for an interview or deposition to explain his side. He has done countless interviews and gave a press conference just a few feet from here earlier this morning, but somehow he never found time to meet with us. Somehow he never even tried to offer a plausible explanation for his conduct. In fact, all he said today was that he would address our report at a later time.

He said something over the weekend that stuck with me. He said he would wear expulsion as a badge of honor. When all this is over, I am afraid he won't be wearing a badge of honor, he will be wearing an orange jumpsuit.

This is a historic moment. The House has only expelled five Members in our entire history.

The Constitution is clear that we don't have to wait until Mr. Santos is remanded to the Bureau of Prisons before we can vote to expel him from the House of Representatives.

The Constitution is also clear in the safeguards it provides to ensure that the power to expel a duly elected Member was not abused. The Framers--in their wisdom--set the high bar of a two-thirds vote.

Unlike some of the rushed motions to censure that we have seen here on this floor just in the past year, Mr. Santos received a full and extensive investigation, and a detailed report from the Ethics Committee. The evidence of criminal and ethical misconduct is extensive, overwhelming, and undisputed.

Finally, the Ethics Committee's investigation and report was bipartisan, and its findings were unanimous.

Given all of these safeguards and all of this evidence, now is the time to hold Mr. Santos accountable. Now is the time to show the American people that we can hold ourselves to at least a minimal standard of conduct. Now is the time to vote to expel George Santos from the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Perry amendment. This amendment would cut $150 million in Federal capital funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

The Perry amendment would undermine a successful Federal-State-local partnership which provides Metro with $150 million in Federal funding for urgent capital projects. This funding is matched 100 percent with $150 million from Metro compact members, Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. The $300 million annual investment is critical to improving the safety and reliability of the system.

Continued bipartisan support for America's transit agency will ensure WMATA progress on restoring aging infrastructure and maintaining a safe and reliable system for visitors from across the United States.

This annual capital funding program was created by Republican Congressman Tom Davis as part of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. This program has received

broad bipartisan support for more than a decade, and the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act reauthorized the program until 2030.

Funding for the Federal Government's FY 2024 contribution to Metro is included in this bill on the House floor this week and was in the T-HUD bill that recently passed the Senate by a vote of 82-15.

The funding enjoys such consistent and longstanding support in Congress because the Federal Government is both a stakeholder in the system and a chief beneficiary of this annual capital funding contribution.

Metro is a $40 billion asset to the national capital region and is essential to the operation of the Federal Government. More than one- third of all Metro stations are located on Federal property serving Federal facilities.

Unlike other transportation networks in the Nation, the Metro system serves a distinct vital national security role for the Federal Government, providing transportation to the Pentagon, Homeland Security, and the FBI offices. Metro transports thousands of Federal employees to work each day, and that number is increasing as Metro helps Federal agencies increase in-person work.

Metro recently saw its highest rate of Federal employee ridership since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the services and accomplishments of James Hairston III and Trina Hairston, the Lead Pastors of All Nations Worship Assembly Washington, D.C.

Both natives of Bridgeport, Connecticut came to being the Lead Pastors in January of 2019 of All Nations Worship Assembly Washington, D.C. At the start of launching, they hosted live-streaming Bible Study sessions and live worship services called ``Preaching to the Choir'' to draw the local community closer to God. Within the last four years, they have built a culture of outreach, discipleship, and fellowship for the local Prince George's County communities. As Lead Pastors, they have purposed in their heart to cultivate the community through love, prayer, and teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We recognize that Pastors James Hairston III and Trina Hairston as a force within the Prince George's County community. Their passion has been powerful by spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ through prayer, love, outreach, discipleship, and fellowship into the lives of underserved and disadvantaged communities. Their commitment to God has both led Pastor James Hairston III and Trina Hairston to be great faith-based pillar within Prince George's County.

On behalf of Maryland 4th Congressional District, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Lead Pastors James Hairston III and Trina Hairston for their exemplary accomplishments, dedication to public service, and trailblazing leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the Republicans have skipped town. They are leaving behind a ransom note on the full faith and credit of the United States. One Republican Congressman said: ``My conservative colleagues don't feel like we should negotiate with our hostage,'' but the real hostages are American seniors, veterans, and working families.

Donald Trump said: ``If they don't give you massive cuts, you are going to have to do a default,'' but that is not what he said back in 2019. Back then, he said the debt ceiling was, ``a very sacred thing in our country that we can never play with.''

He was right then.

Instead of cutting costs on the backs of working people, we should require billionaires and corporations to pay their fair share, but Republicans in Congress would rather put veterans' healthcare on the chopping block. Most Americans, most Republicans, don't support that. Let's get serious and get back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I will support legislation that fairly and appropriately addresses the serious shortcomings in our country's immigration laws, but, unfortunately, H.R. 2 is not that bill.

H.R. 2 is a false promise to the extreme Republican base. The Senate has already made it clear that this bill is dead on arrival. But even if the bill somehow passed, it does not provide funding to build a wall, nor hire more Border Patrol officers, nor retain those we already have.

A cornerstone of H.R. 2, and its first major provision, is a return to Donald Trump's quest to build a wall along our southern border. But the Republican bill doesn't even provide the money to pay for it.

The bill calls for a wall that is at least 900 miles long, but it would not stop the flow of fentanyl. The Sinaloa cartel in Mexico routinely drives by the wall that is already there, flies over the wall, and tunnels underneath it, as we learned during the DOJ takedown of the Sinaloa cartel a few weeks ago.

The wall would also be a financial disaster. H.R. 2 presumes that the wall would be funded with unspent money that has been allocated for the wall. But former President Trump siphoned away much of the unspent funds for the wall from other departments and the programs for those funds were eventually returned to them.

According to the CBO's analysis, another 160 miles of the wall would have to be built to reach the 900-mile mandate that is in the bill. In estimating these costs, CBO wrote: ``CBO estimates an average cost per mile of $25 million. . . . CBO expects that previously appropriated amounts could cover the cost of 80 miles of construction; thus, CBP would need an additional $2 billion to complete the other 80 miles.''

On top of that, the Republicans just announced that they proposed a 22 percent cut across the board for much of the government, including

Mr. Speaker, this is why many groups have written letters of opposition to H.R. 2, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the AFL-CIO, Catholic Charities, and 136 humanitarian aid organizations who signed a joint letter of opposition.

For example, the bishop of El Paso and the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration wrote: ``As drafted, these provisions could even be interpreted to prevent schools, houses of worship, and other organizations from qualifying for the Nonprofit Security Grant program amid a rise in violent attacks on those places.''

The bishop also noted that DHS's ability to rescue persons encountered in the desert in life-threatening circumstances and process unaccompanied children, victims of trafficking, victims of torture, and others, who even under this bill's terms would warrant such processing, could be precluded.

Mr. Speaker, for these and many other reasons, I thoroughly oppose

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Raise the Age Act.

This bill would protect the public by raising the minimum age to purchase semiautomatic centerfire rifles to 21 years old. Currently, the buyer only needs to be 18 years old, even though the minimum age to purchase a handgun from a dealer with a Federal license is 21 years old.

The Raise the Age Act would apply the 21-year-old minimum age standard to buyers of semiautomatic centerfire rifles just as it applies to buyers of handguns.

Imagine the agony that Alexandria Rubio's parents felt last May when they learned that their 10-year-old daughter's life was cut short at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.

On that horrific day, 21 beautiful spirits were stolen from us: 19 precious young children and 2 beloved, dedicated teachers.

The halls of the grade school were forever robbed of their innocence due to the gruesome actions committed by an 18-year-old who used a semiautomatic weapon that he purchased shortly after his 18th birthday.

On May 14th, 2022, 53-year-old Andre Mackneil went to the Tops grocery store in Buffalo, New York, to purchase a birthday cake for his grandson. He never returned home for his grandson's birthday due to the heinous acts of an 18-year-old mass shooter with an assault weapon.

That 18-year-old ended the lives of 10 innocent souls that day. Had a 21-year-old age requirement been in place, that 18-year-old shooter would not have been able to legally purchase that firearm just a few months earlier and the tragedy and trauma that occurred that day might have been avoided.

Some of the most horrific and heartbreaking mass shootings in our history were committed by 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds using assault weapons, including the massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012; at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018; and at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999.

According to CNN, in November of 2022, up to that point, at least 3,179 people had been shot in mass shootings, resulting in 637 deaths and more than 2,500 people wounded. Already in 2023, there have been more than 170 mass shootings.

Some of my colleagues insist on choosing the Second Amendment over second graders. They insist on banning books in schools instead of banning assault weapons in schools. They talk about the weaponization of our government, but they are silent when actual weapons are used to lay waste to our schoolchildren.

Instead of supporting commonsense reforms to address our country's gun epidemic, some Members offer bills that would make the problem even worse, such as eliminating the ATF, the lead Federal law enforcement agency that fights against gun violence.

Time and time again, our communities are devastated by these mass killings. Some politicians send thoughts and prayers, but we should all

remember the wisdom in Paul's letter to James: ``Faith without works is dead.'' This bill alone won't fix the problem of gun violence, but we know that inaction will not stop the mass killings. The time for action is long overdue.

That is why this bill is supported by many gun violence prevention organizations, including the Giffords Law Center, which observes its 10th anniversary today, March for Our Lives, Newtown Action Alliance, Community Justice Action Fund, and several others. Some major retail chains like Walmart have even voluntarily raised the age from 18 to 21 to buy a firearm at their stores.

Raising the age to 21 also withstood judicial scrutiny recently. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a similar law on the 21- year-old age requirement in Florida that was enacted shortly after the 2018 massacres in Parkland, Florida.

The Court determined that the act's restrictions on the sale of firearms to 18- to 20-year-olds ``is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.''

Raising the age to 21 to purchase these kinds of firearms is reasonable and a crucial step, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Judge Shiela R. Tillerson Adams and her well-earned retirement after 12 years of working as the Chief and Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Maryland.

The achievements of Judge Tillerson Adams are historic. As the first African-American woman appointed to the District Court of Maryland, she blazed a trail, not just for women in Prince George's County but for us all. Three years later, she was elevated to the Circuit Court, where she served with distinction until another much-deserved promotion in 2010 made her the Chief and Administrative Judge for the Circuit Court.

At every step, her service was guided by a noble mission: ``The Circuit Court Welcomes All--A Forum for Justice.'' Her commitment to that ethos never wavered. Throughout her tenure, she was a pioneer who expanded problem-solving courts to help people struggling with substance abuse, truancy, or reentry into society after incarceration. She worked to expand opportunities for veterans and diversion programs for juveniles, and she did it all with a sense of grace and compassion that is unmatched. She cares about people, through and through. She leaves a legacy that will reverberate in our community for generations.

It is with great pride that I recognize her accomplishments, and wish her a happy retirement after her storied judicial career.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate a dedicated professional with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on the occasion of his retirement. Mr. Eric Raun is an exemplary public servant who has demonstrated the highest standards of professionalism serving our nation's veterans. He has served with VA's Office of General Counsel for more than 40 years. His career in public service is a testament to the importance of selfless service.

For the entirety of his legal career, Mr. Raun has provided guidance to the Secretary and senior officials of the Veterans Health Administration. He has been involved in a remarkable breadth of important matters including health care eligibility reform, the establishment of the medical benefits package, the creation and development of the State Veterans Home program, gifts to VA, mental health care, and countless other issues.

As Mr. Raun embarks on a new chapter in life, it is my hope that he will recall, with a deep sense of pride and accomplishment, the outstanding contributions he has made to VA, Congress, and veterans of the United States. May his life be filled with health and happiness.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor I rise today to coanchor this CBC Special Order hour with Chairman Horsford, the chairman of the CBC, and Ms. Kamlager-Dove of California.

For the next 60 minutes, we have a chance to speak directly to the American people on issues of great importance to the Congressional Black Caucus, Congress, the constituents we represent, and all Americans.

Today, we will be speaking on the death of Tyre Nichols.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today--after the horrifying murder of yet another young, Black man at the hands of police--outraged because nothing has worked.

``They need more police training,'' we said.

But so-called elite squads like SCORPION already require extra training over and above the basics.

``They need more diversity,'' we said.

But every single one of the five officers we saw mercilessly beat an unarmed and compliant Tyre Nichols was Black, just like him.

``They need more accountability,'' we said.

But even the advent of body cameras hasn't stopped officers from pummeling our sons--and sometimes our daughters--to death over mere traffic infractions.

Just throw in a few shouts of: ``Stop resisting'' to try and fool our eyes from believing what we are clearly seeing.

We tried all those things--more training, more diversity, and more accountability--and yet Tyre Nichols is dead. He was dragged out of his car and attacked by a swarm of men twice his size, exhausting themselves and then coming back to beat him again.

Reforming these so-called elite squads is not enough. It is time to end them altogether.

These units often attract and recruit young, aggressive officers drawn to the prospect of less supervision. They slap an intimidating name on the team, like SCORPION or STRESS or CRASH--which in the nineties stood for Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums--because these units aren't about forging bonds with the communities they serve. They are about instilling fear.

They descend on low-income, usually minority neighborhoods looking to make pretextual stops in search of drugs or guns. That is not a secret. It is a tactic sanctioned by the Supreme Court itself. An officer can stop anyone for whatever reason he wants. He doesn't even need to know which law he suspects you of breaking, Mr. Speaker, so long as he can develop a reason after the fact--reasons that are often minor, trivial, and unrelated. Things like a busted taillight or partially obscured traffic tag are sufficient for these stops.

This is formal policy in police departments across the country. For example, the New York City Police Department admittedly trained its officers to ``stop and question first, develop reasonable suspicion later.''

What results is a constant state of alert. Black and Brown males worry about being pulled over for a minor traffic stop that can spiral out of control. Police officers worry because they are understandably taught that there is nothing more dangerous than to walk up to a stranger's driver-side window at night. Both sides of the confrontation are on edge.

And for what?

So that an officer can peek inside the car for contraband and ask for so-called consent to search the car, despite many drivers feeling like they can't say no.

These pretextual traffic stops aren't bearing much fruit. A study found that stop-and-frisk searches in New York City produced drugs or guns in less than 2 percent of the cases. What it does is breed contempt between the police and the people they are sworn to protect. African Americans are five times more likely to have their vehicles searched, and a Black man has to hit the age of 50 before his chance of being pulled over lowers to that of a young White man.

As the father of five Black sons, I am all too familiar with the talk parents are duty bound to give their Black and Brown children about how to deescalate interactions with the police.

As a former prosecutor, I saw firsthand how communities can be ravaged by fear in the face of violent crime and threats to public safety. Those communities should not also be afraid of the men and women in uniform whose job it is to defend them. Police can't investigate crime if victims and witnesses don't trust them enough to come forward. These squads running roughshod on our streets are contributing to a breakdown in that trust. It isn't leading to better results, but it is contributing to the unjustified killing of our kids.

Memphis Police Chief Cerelyn Davis did the right thing by shutting down the SCORPION unit. But we must not wait until the next murder of an innocent man gets national attention before we shut down these roving elite squads across the country.

Professor Christy E. Lopez, the co-chair of the D.C. Police Reform Commission, made the case brilliantly in a recent Washington Post editorial titled: ``Cities should get rid of their toxic crime- suppression units.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this article by Christy E. Lopez.

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 31, 2023]

Cities Should get rid of Their Toxic Crime-Suppression Units

(By Christy E. Lopez)

Last week, after five Memphis police officers were charged

with murdering their son, Tyre Nichols's family called for

the dissolution of Scorpion, the specialized policing unit to

which those officers were assigned. On Saturday, Memphis made

the right decision and announced it would shut the unit down.

Now, other cities should follow Memphis's lead and disband

their own analogous--and outdated--units.

In my decades investigating law enforcement agencies, and

studying what makes them prone to causing unnecessary harm, I

have consistently found that units such as Scorpion are a key

factor. And they are not unusual. Most mid-size to large

cities have a unit--or several--akin to Scorpion, focused on

areas considered to be crime ``hot spots'' or on a particular

task such as seizing drugs or guns.

These teams have various names orbiting around buzzwords

like ``crime suppression'' or ``violence reduction.'' In the

communities they police, they're often just called ``jump

outs.'' Regardless of the name, they are all under official

direction--pressure, even--to aggressively police areas

deemed high-crime, nearly always majority Black or Latino,

often using traffic and pedestrian stops as an excuse to

search people and their belongings in the hopes of finding

guns or other contraband.

It's possible that Scorpion was a particularly bad specimen

of this family of aggressive policing units: As one police

chief noted, the name ``speaks volumes about the mission of

the unit and the mentality of the officers.'' That

``Scorpion'' was an acronym for ``Street Crimes Operation to

Restore Peace in Our Neighborhoods'' is a mockery of genuine

concern for community well-being.

But this tolerance for inflicting community pain in the

name of community protection is a thread that runs through

these teams going back decades. In the 1990s, the

Los Angeles Police Department's ``special investigations

section'' was an ``elite'' unit known both for the

extraordinary number of people it killed in shootouts and for

its practice of allowing community members to be victimized

so it could make better arrests. During a Justice Department

investigation of the New Orleans Police Department in 2010, a

police official told investigators that the community viewed

street crime ``task forces'' as ``jump out boys, dirty cops,

the ones who are going to be brutal.'' These task forces

finally were ended in 2020 after the federal monitor showed

they operated with little supervision, made stops with

``questionable legal basis,'' didn't document their work and

endangered citizens.

An investigation of the Baltimore Police Department's

notoriously corrupt and violent Gun Trace Task Force (GTTF)

found that although created in 2007, its abusive tactics had

roots dating back to at least 1999. Yet the GTTF was not

disbanded until eight of its officers were indicted in 2017.

In Washington, the D.C. Police Reform Commission (which I

co-chaired) recommended in 2021 that the Metropolitan Police

Department suspend its crime-suppression teams and gun

recovery unit until it could provide data showing its

effectiveness. The department has not done so, although late

last year, it suspended one crime-suppression team after

seven of its officers were put under investigation. A month

ago, a former officer from another team was convicted of

second-degree murder for a 2020 car chase that killed Karon

Hylton-Brown (another unit officer was found guilty of

obstructing justice).

These units can't be fixed. Their problems go beyond issues

with selection, training or supervision. The premise on which

they are based ensures they will fail communities. Everything

we know teaches us that, to be effective, policing must

center community well-being and fair treatment. But these

units are focused on stats: arrests made, guns and drugs

recovered, even overtime hours worked. This incentivizes

policing that takes full advantage (and then some) of the

broad discretion under law--including pretext stops and

discretion to jail that is broader than a judge's--to detain

and search people based on little more than a hunch, a

profile or where they live. It's an approach that has been

shown time and again to be inefficient, alienating and

confrontation-provoking, even as its impact on crime is

uncertain.

I have talked with many police officers who are ambivalent

about--or even resentful of--these units, which generally do

not respond to calls for service. This leaves regular patrol

officers to pick up the slack--and often, the pieces of

community relationship broken by interactions with the

specialized units. These patrol officers live the mixed

messages given by police and city leadership: They are

sternly admonished to build trust and take action only where

public safety requires, even as they see leadership

encouraging (and promoting) members of crime-suppression

teams. They watch as the relationships they built with

community members go unnoticed and the latest gun and drug

bust earns a commendation. Heavily policed communities will

tell you exactly how this contradiction plays out: ``The

police are everywhere,'' I often have been told, ``until you

need them.''

Suppression units also become petri dishes for cultures of

impunity. As long as they ``produce,'' making arrests and

bringing in contraband, chiefs can ward off unrealistic

expectations that policing solve social problems. But

facilitating this kind of ``production'' has always, in my

experience, gone hand-in-hand with indulging lax adherence to

law and policy, discounting or glossing over misconduct

complaints and generous overtime approval.

These units reflect and reinforce the worst aspects of

warrior policing. The cost-benefit analysis makes no sense

once you recognize that we have underestimated their harms,

and the benefits they offer could be better achieved through

services that respond more directly to community needs and

work to reduce the root causes of crime.

Disbanding Scorpion was likely a little too little, and

certainly a little too late. Other communities should not

wait for an act of searing violence before rethinking this

approach. It's time to recognize the harm these units cause--

and put an end to them and the approach to policing they

embody.

Finally, I think the time has come to end pretextual stops completely because they are just racial profiling hiding behind legalese and little more than a subtle way to circumvent the constitutional rights of Black and Brown males.

Pretext stops allow police to stop cars even though they lack even reasonable suspicion to think that an actual crime is, has been, or is about to be committed.

They allow police to pressure drivers into a so-called consensual search so that they can avoid the need to obtain a warrant to search the car. As we have seen yet again, these pretextual stops frequently escalate into young men being killed or seriously injured not because they broke the law but because they have been targeted for aggressive police tactics that aren't directed at other communities.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge President Biden to use his executive authority to put an end to this practice at the Federal level, and I urge State and local officials--mayors, police chiefs, and county executives--to put an end to this practice all over the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for her powerful and extemporaneous comments. I think it is a representation of the powerful leadership she has provided over the years and will continue to provide in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), my colleague, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for that powerful statement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), my colleague, the Representative from the Fourth District of Georgia.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those powerful comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Representative Kamlager-Dove and the Congressional Black Caucus, we thank the Speaker for this opportunity.

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