Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, due to a personal matter, I was not in Washington, D.C. on June 5, 2023, and as a result, missed two votes. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 245, and YEA on Roll Call No. 246.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, recognizing Jewish American Heritage Month and the important contributions that Jewish Americans have made to our history, our society, and our culture. I thank Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz for introducing this resolution and for her tireless work on this topic.

We, in the House of Representatives, have been marking Jewish American Heritage Month since 2005. Of course, Jewish contributions to the mosaic of the United States began centuries ago.

In fact, the Jewish-American community dates back to the mid-17th century when 23 Jews fleeing the Portuguese Inquisition found refuge in what we now call New York City in 1654.

Jewish families have put down roots across this country, and thousands and thousands more have crossed oceans to seek security, freedom, and religious liberty. That small Jewish community, which began with 23 individuals fleeing the inquisition, has grown into more than 6 million people. Jewish Americans have become part of the central fabric of the United States.

As the most senior Jewish Member of Congress, I am proud to represent a district with one of the largest Jewish communities in the United States and one that is home to so many historic Jewish institutions that represent the rich diversity of this community. This includes Congregation Shearith Israel, which was founded by those 23 Jews in 1654, as well as the first Reconstructionist synagogue, the Society for the Advancement of Judaism, which hosted the first bat mitzvah in the United States and the first Ashkenazic synagogue in the United States, Congregation B'Nai Jeshurun, which split off from Shearith Israel in 1829.

This May, during Jewish American Heritage Month, while we celebrate that history and the contributions of Jewish Americans, we also recommit ourselves to fighting anti-Semitism in all its forms.

Anti-Semitism is not a new presence in our society. It is a scourge that has plagued Jewish communities around the world for millennia. Still, the harrowing recent uptick in anti-Semitic attacks across the country means that we must redouble our efforts to combat this hatred.

I applaud the White House for developing the first-ever National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, which was released just last week. This historic effort includes concrete steps that we can all take, including civil society, local government, Congress, and the executive branch, to bring to life the priorities brought forth by this strategy.

This month and every month, we fight against anti-Semitism and celebrate the countless contributions made by Jewish Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, during Jewish American Heritage Month, we celebrate the rich history and many contributions of Jewish Americans. We also recognize that anti-Semitism continues to be a scourge on our society that we must combat in all its forms.

I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for bringing forward this important resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is nothing more than empty rhetoric designed to score political points. It does nothing to help our law enforcement officers do their jobs. It does nothing to solve crimes or promote justice. It does nothing to take deadly weapons like those used to target law enforcement off our streets, and it does nothing to make our communities safer.

It is also wildly misleading and full of incendiary rhetoric that does not match reality. Very conspicuously, it even fails to recognize the service or contributions of Federal, State, or Tribal law enforcement officers.

It is worth remembering that when the Republicans passed their rules package at the beginning of the Congress, it included several supposedly ``ready to go on day one'' bills.

An earlier version of this resolution was included in that list, but it never made it to the floor. Now we know why. The problem is that the original version praised all law enforcement, not just local law enforcement, as this resolution does.

Why was that a problem?

Because as we have learned in recent months, House Republicans now support defunding the police at the Federal level. Don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Chairman Jordan told FOX News that he wants to ``look at the appropriations process and limit funds going to some of these agencies.''

He later made clear he was referring to the FBI and the Department of Justice.

Mr. Biggs has called directly for defunding those agencies, and Mr. Gaetz has introduced a bill that would eliminate the ATF altogether.

Limiting the resolution to local law enforcement also helps Republicans paper over an embarrassing split in their caucus over whether even to recognize the contributions of our brave Capitol Police officers who protected us on January 6.

I remind Members that 41 Republicans voted against awarding Congressional Gold Medals to the Capitol Police officers and the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department in recognition of their service on January 6.

That must be why the resolution states that violent leftist extremists have attacked law enforcement, but it makes no mention of the violent mob of far-right extremists and white supremacists who stormed the Capitol that day injuring 140 police officers with five officers losing their lives in the days after.

H. Con. Res. 40 is a hopelessly misleading resolution that omits crucial context and ignores crime trends in the country, including the disturbing rise in gun violence and the higher per capita murder rate in States won by Donald Trump.

While Republicans want to talk tough with nonbinding resolutions about funding the police--local police that is--it was Democrats who passed bill after bill last Congress to actually fund and support the police.

So where were Republicans when Democrats went about the serious work of legislating?

When given the opportunity to put action behind their cheap rhetoric, time and again, Republicans voted ``no.'' For example, last Congress Democrats advanced the Invest to Protect Act which would have authorized $300 million in grants to law enforcement agencies with fewer than 125 officers to smaller localities.

This legislation passed with bipartisan support, but 55 Republican Members voted against it.

Democrats also advanced the VICTIM Act led by Congresswoman and former police chief Val Demings which would have provided grants totaling up to $100 million per year to law enforcement agencies to help them solve violent crimes and close outstanding cases.

Mr. Speaker, 178 Republicans voted against it.

Democrats advanced the assault weapons ban which was supported by the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives because they know that these weapons of war are used to murder law enforcement officers and to terrorize their communities.

Nearly every Republican voted ``no.''

House Democrats worked with Republican Senator John Cornyn--who is not someone known to be soft on crime--to pass the Law Enforcement De- Escalation Training Act, a bill that increases safety for law enforcement and community members alike.

This bipartisan bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent, but when it came to the House, 159 Republicans voted against it.

This is not and never has been a serious approach to legislating.

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 40 is a wasted opportunity to advance meaningful legislation that would support the men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker referred to some remarks I made, and they are accurate.

What I said was that substantial resources should be taken from the police and given to mental health services, and that was done. About a billion dollars was taken from the police department in New York City by the city council and the mayor and given to mental health services.

That made sense. Why? Because when someone is acting out on the subway, when someone is threatening on the subway, what you usually need is a mental health professional there, not a policeman who doesn't know how to handle it.

Since a lot of resources were devoted to mental health, the situation in the subways generally and on the streets has gotten much better. It has worked.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I can say that when the gentleman says we should honor local police, he is also saying we should not honor Federal police.

This resolution does not honor Federal police. It does not honor the ATF, the FBI, or thousands of Federal law enforcement officers, the law enforcement officers who protected us on January 6 from a far-right attack.

It talks about leftist violence, but it refuses to talk about rightwing violence. It is not a balanced or fair resolution.

It seeks to give a distorted picture of what is going on in this country, and that is why we cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, before recognizing the next speaker, let me also point out that this resolution also claims that progressive politicians actively encourage resentment toward local law enforcement.

When we tried to remove such misleading claims during the markup, Republicans said no. We tried to unite behind what should have been the point of this resolution, support of all law enforcement without language that shamed or demonized Members and misled Americans, but Republicans refused. That is another reason we have to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the gentleman from Colorado wants to honor Federal law enforcement personnel who defended us on January 6 and otherwise, which leads me to the question of why the Republicans refused to let us have an amendment to that effect in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman from Colorado say he is interested in a resolution praising the Capitol Police and so forth, which makes it all the more puzzling why the Republicans refused to let us consider an amendment to that effect to this resolution in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Again, if the gentleman wanted to support our Federal police, the ATF, the FBI, the Capitol Police, he had the opportunity in committee, and the Republicans refused to let us consider that.

We have all of these statements from people like the chairman of the committee saying defund the FBI, defend the ATF. This is being a little, shall we say--I don't want to use the word ``hypocritical,'' but I can't think of a different word.

We should oppose this resolution because it is blatantly one-sided, it blames leftist agitators improperly, and it does not deal with Federal law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, police week ought to be a unifying event, a time when we can all come together in a bipartisan fashion to recognize and support the men and women of law enforcement who risk their lives to keep us and our communities safe.

Instead of offering serious legislation, Republicans have brought forward misleading and incendiary political talking points that will neither protect law enforcement nor enhance public safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I oppose the D'Esposito amendment as its central focus is advocacy for the law enforcement officers' bill of rights, a controversial measure pushed by police unions and adopted by many States in response to demands for greater accountability and transparency following many high-profile incidents of police abuse and misconduct. While seemingly benign, the impact of a bill of rights for law enforcement officers can be profound.

For decades, this type of legislation has been one of the greatest obstacles to police accountability, hindering investigations, and shielding misconduct from public scrutiny, a likely explanation for why less than half of all States have adopted one. In Maryland, the first State to adopt and the first State to repeal an officers' bill of rights, the statute was often cited as the reason for Baltimore's long history of police misconduct.

In many instances, the statutes offer protections and procedural privileges to law enforcement officers facing accusations of wrongdoing or disciplinary action far beyond those afforded to other government employees or to the average civilian accused of criminal behavior.

For instance, some States provide officers involved in an incident a cooling-off period of 24 hours or so before they must cooperate with internal investigators. During this cooling-off period, an officer and his or her attorney may have access to evidence collected during the investigation before the officer is interviewed.

Through these statutes, officers are shielded from the very interview tactics that they use on civilians, such as lengthy interrogations or the use of aggressive or threatening questioning, or promises of rewards to induce cooperation, both of which this amendment suggests should be avoided to ensure the fair administration of justice when investigating officer misconduct and only officer misconduct.

These laws can allow officers accused of wrongdoing to remain on duty for prolonged periods of time while investigations are conducted, as well as limit the types of disciplinary actions that can be taken against officers accused of wrongdoing. They also often limit the authority of civilian review boards and make it difficult for the public to access information about officers' misconduct in disciplinary proceedings and, ultimately, for civilians to hold officers accountable for their actions.

These concerns have led to calls across the country to repeal or reform existing law enforcement officers' bills of rights to ensure more transparency, accountability, and fairness in the disciplinary process. When mayors and police chiefs have attempted to reform their troubled police departments, it has been their States' officers' bills of rights that have stood in the way.

While this amendment might be well intentioned, it encourages States to adopt a bill of rights for local law enforcement personnel without offering any guidance so that we might not further perpetuate the already problematic nature of these measures which I have just outlined.

Lastly, I note that just as the text of H. Con. Res. 40 celebrates local law enforcement while ignoring thousands of Federal, State, and Tribal law enforcement officers, so, too, does this amendment. It is for these reasons that I must oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, if I mispronounced Mr. D'Esposito's name, I apologize. I thought I said it correctly.

Secondly, I outlined in my remarks the problems with existing State bills of rights for police officers. Some States have repealed them. They have gotten in the way of investigations. They have gotten in the way of investigations of police brutality and misconduct and generally have aggravated all the reasons, all the problems that I spoke about in my opposition to the main bill.

For that reason, I reiterate my opposition to this amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to vote against it.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, Federal regulations for the management of Federal property currently prohibit an agency from disposing of functional or repairable firearms by selling them. Under these regulations, when an agency no longer has a need for a firearm, it can transfer it to another law enforcement entity or destroy it.

This regulation has served the important goal of ensuring that federally owned firearms do not fall into the wrong hands, but it also misses an opportunity to save money by selling an unneeded firearm to the law enforcement officer who has been using it.

Last Congress, our colleague and former Orlando Police chief Congresswoman Val Demings recognized the opportunity for improvement in these regulations. She introduced the original version of this legislation, which allows a Federal agency to sell a retired handgun to the law enforcement officer who had been using it, transferring it from a service weapon to a weapon in the hands of a responsible gun owner who is trained to use it.

Congresswoman Demings' legislation included two improvements that, unfortunately, have been removed from the current version of the bill.

Her version required the law enforcement officer who was purchasing the gun to undergo a background check. This is a commonsense requirement, given that an officer would undergo a standard background check to purchase the weapon from any other sellers.

Most background checks are practically instantaneous, often about 30 seconds. I do not think that 30 seconds is too long to wait to ensure that a gun does not fall into the wrong hands.

While I think it is notable that the majority stripped this reasonable and effortless requirement, the current version of the bill does require a purchasing officer to be in good standing.

While this is not as thorough as Congresswoman Demings' legislation, the good-standing requirement should prevent unlawful transfers in most cases.

Ms. Demings' bill also included a sense of Congress that the funds received by the government from selling a retired service weapon should be used to support evidence-based gun violence prevention or gun safety education and

training programs. Again, this is a thoughtful provision that would have directed these funds toward a critical need in our communities and would have improved public safety.

This provision should be totally noncontroversial, but our Republican colleagues have stripped it from the bill. The only logical conclusion is that they do not want a single additional dollar to go to gun violence prevention, even as it continues to tear our communities apart and imperil the lives of law enforcement officers.

While I wish the majority had left Congresswoman Demings' bill intact, I nonetheless support this weakened version of her work.

I want to make it very clear that if any of the Republican poison pill amendments pass, I will have to encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

The base text of this bill allows limited transfers of handguns to active Federal law enforcement officers in good standing for fair market value. The amendments subvert this purpose by allowing those who are not active law enforcement to purchase a weapon without a background check, allowing the government to sell military-style assault weapons without a background check and forcing taxpayers to subsidize these gun sales by selling them below their fair market value.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge all Members to oppose these amendments.

I note, however, that I support Ms. Jacobs' very helpful amendment to further define the good-standing requirement and help ensure that retired weapons are only transferred to those who can be trusted with them.

This bill had bipartisan support in committee, so it is unfortunate that the majority would rather politicize National Police Week with a radical gun agenda than pass a reasonable bipartisan bill.

If the poison pill amendments fail, I will continue to support the bill. If any of them pass, I must urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

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

Mr. Chairman, this legislation improves government efficiency by allowing a Federal agency to sell a retired handgun to the law enforcement officer who had been using it. This was a good idea when it was introduced last Congress on a bipartisan basis by former Congresswoman Val Demings, and it continues to be one.

I am disappointed that Republicans have chosen to move forward with a weaker version of her bill. Nonetheless, I support its passage unless it is further weakened by the Republican poison pill amendments I referred to in my opening statement.

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

Mr. Chair, when Congresswoman Demings introduced her superior version of this legislation last Congress, it would require the law enforcement officer who is purchasing the gun to undergo a background check. This is a commonsense requirement, given that an officer would undergo a standard background check to purchase the weapon from any other sellers.

My colleagues submitted amendments that would add this background check requirement back in. It is unfortunate that that strong and reasonable amendment was not made in order.

This amendment, the Jacobs amendment, does the next best thing. It would further define the good-standing requirement and help ensure that retired weapons are only transferred to those who can be trusted with them.

This amendment will help close the gap between what a NICS check would reveal and what an employing Federal law enforcement agency would find in making a determination that an officer is in good standing.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chair, when Congresswoman Demings introduced a superior version of this legislation last Congress, it was premised on the principle of making the most of taxpayer dollars and recouping the values of weapons that were not at the end of their usable life.

This amendment would require these weapons not at the end of their usable life to be sold at their salvage value, which by its terms, is below the fair market value of these weapons. This prevents the agency from recouping the full value of the weapon.

The effect of this amendment is to sell firearms at a discount funded by taxpayers. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize gun sales, which is contrary to the intended purpose of this bill that was introduced last Congress and is also contrary to the intent of the bill in the form it unanimously passed in the Judiciary Committee.

Taxpayers should be funding the government, not subsidizing gun sales. This amendment is contrary to the intent of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I think the gentleman misunderstands the bill. This bill is not when the officer retires. It is when the gun is retired. When the gun is retired, perhaps because the law enforcement agency is upgrading to a more modern gun, it can be sold, and the money goes to the taxpayers, obviously. If it is not repairable, it can then be scrapped.

This amendment would say that it can't be done. It would say that you could not recover the full market value of the weapon, and there is no reason the taxpayers shouldn't recover that.

The amendment is an antitaxpayer amendment. It is not for the officer when he retires. It is when the weapon is retired, which may be before or long after the officer retires. It has nothing to do with that. So the amendment would simply cost the taxpayers money for no purpose at all, and I, therefore, oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chair, when Congresswoman Demings introduced her superior version of this legislation last Congress, it required the law enforcement officer who was purchasing the gun to undergo a background check. This is a commonsense requirement, given that an officer would undergo a standard background check to purchase the weapon from many other sellers.

My colleagues submitted amendments that would add this background check requirement back in. It is unfortunate that that strong and reasonable amendment was not made in order.

The bill as passed in committee allows sales only to officers in good standing.

This amendment allows retired Federal law enforcement officers to also be eligible to purchase surplus service weapons without the usual NICS background check or a certification of good standing.

This amendment is contrary to existing law and could allow prohibited purchasers to buy a handgun. Retired officers have no standing with an agency. They are not subject to any of the oversight and employment rules of active Federal law enforcement.

With this amendment, someone could retire, be convicted of a felony, and then purchase a handgun from the Federal Government, even though they would fail a NICS check because a NICS check is not required.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, a police officer can retire for many reasons. One of them is that he is being forced out for misconduct. An officer who is forced out for misconduct should not be permitted to buy a gun without a background check. The background check might show the misconduct--would show the misconduct that forced them out. If he committed a felony, it would show that.

Under this amendment, a retired officer who was pushed out because of bad conduct, who was pushed out because he could not be trusted with a handgun, who subsequently commits a felony could still purchase a handgun without a background check. That is dangerous to the public and makes no sense at all.

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

Mr. Chair, the gentleman is mistaken. There is a difference between the officer and the gun. The gun is being retired. The officer may have committed a felony--the ex-officer, I should say, may have committed a felony, may have been forced out for bad conduct, and under this amendment would be permitted to purchase the gun without a background check that would show his felony or whatever conduct caused him to be pushed out. It is dangerous.

We are not talking about an officer upon retirement buying his gun. We are talking about an ex-officer who may have committed a felony, who may have been forced out for dangerous conduct now being permitted to purchase a gun without a background check that would show that this is a dangerous character.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment expands the types of weapons officers are allowed to purchase to include all retired firearms. The amendment radically extends the bill and runs counter to its original purpose.

This amendment would allow semiautomatic assault weapons, sniper rifles, and military-grade weaponry to be purchased without a background check. While Federal law enforcement has a need for these weapons, they have no place in our communities.

Though the amendment excludes machine guns, it does not exclude other firearms subject to heightened regulation under the National Firearms Act, such as short-barreled rifles and even grenade launchers. The Federal Government should not be selling these dangerous weapons to people operating in their civilian capacity.

Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it, as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, the provision that the gentleman refers to refers only to machine guns. It does not exclude other firearms, as I mentioned, such as short-barreled rifles and even grenade launchers, and these are too dangerous.

We should not be selling these dangerous weapons to people operating in their civilian capacity. That is why this amendment is dangerous and radically changes the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, section 5845, definitions, reads as follows: ``(a) Firearm, the term `firearm' means (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machine gun''--which is the only thing the gentleman excludes from his amendment--``(7) any silencer (as defined . . . ); and (8) a destructive device,'' like a grenade launcher, like a grenade.

Therefore, when I say that this amendment would ban only machine guns but would permit all these other things, including grenades and weapons of destruction, it is right here in the statute. The gentleman's amendment would permit all of these. Those are the kinds of weapons.

Grenade launchers and short-barreled rifles should not be in the possession of civilians, even retired police officers.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, let's be clear: Assaulting a law enforcement officer is a serious offense and cannot be tolerated in the United States. It is also largely already a deportable offense.

If this bill, the so-called Protect Our Law Enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement Act, or the POLICE Act of 2023, closed an actual gap in current law and made our country safer, Democrats would gladly support it.

Unfortunately, this bill represents another unserious attempt by my Republican colleagues to target and scapegoat immigrants and to score cheap, political points for National Police Week while doing nothing to actually protect law enforcement officers.

It is important to remember who this legislation is targeting. This is not about undocumented immigrants who are, of course, already removable, and this is not about people who are seeking to enter the United States. This is about people who have come here the so-called ``right way.'' We are talking about lawful, permanent residents.

People have put down roots in our communities, many of whom have U.S. citizen spouses and children and have truly established themselves here in the United States. Many of these individuals are eligible to become U.S. citizens today, but this bill would make them deportable without even requiring that they be convicted of a crime, only that the assault or act constituting the assault was committed and that the individual admits to the commission of the act.

That throws our whole notion of due process on its head. That is why it is absolutely critical that we adopt Mr. Correa's amendment to close this dangerous loophole. Even if we require a conviction, I am still concerned that the bill is so broad and overinclusive that it could lead to truly absurd results and to the deportation of people who had no intention of ever harming a law enforcement officer.

Let me give you three examples of what this bill would do, as drafted:

A person walks into a fire, sees a beam about to fall on a firefighter, and pushes the firefighter out of the way. He has committed an act that is an assault on the firefighter who is a peace officer, and he is deportable.

A person sees two men fighting on the street and he breaks them up. He pushes them aside, not knowing that one of them is an undercover police officer. He has assaulted the police officer.

A Jehovah's Witness is in an ambulance. The EMT reaches over to put a line in to give him a transfusion. The Jehovah's Witness pushes his hand away. He has committed assault on the EMT who is a peace officer and he is, therefore, deportable.

Now, Republicans will say that these are far-fetched, absurd examples. The problem is that under the terms of the bill, this would happen. However far-fetched you may think the example, you have to read the bill.

Mr. Correa's amendment would correct this. If Mr. Correa's amendment passes, we can support the bill. If it does not, this is a dangerous bill making lawful permanent residents who have been here for many years deportable for no good reasons.

For years, we have had a bipartisan understanding that individuals should be deported only for a serious offense, but this bill breaks down that understanding. I hope we will fix the bill's most significant flaw through the amendment process, namely, the

Correa amendment. If not, I must recommend that my colleagues oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Chair, the gentleman from New York referenced our District Attorney Alvin Bragg. As a resident of Manhattan, I must say that I find Alvin Bragg a perfectly fine district attorney, and he is being attacked only because he has secured indictments on 34 counts against Donald Trump, and that is why they are holding him up for criticism.

I am very glad that I supported him in the Democratic primary against a number of opponents 2 years ago, and he is doing a fine job, including the 34 indictments he secured against former President Trump, who it appears is also going to be indicted in Washington and in Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal)

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casar).

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

Mr. Chair, this bill would make someone deportable if they assault a law enforcement officer, a fact that is already largely the case, as it should be. This bill would make it a deportable offense for a legal, permanent resident to merely perform the acts that could be described as a felony.

That, as I said before, leads to absurd results. The gentleman may say that that is not the intended result and that wouldn't happen, but you have to read the statute as it reads.

These absurd results that I mentioned before--I am not going to repeat them now--would be real unless the Correa amendment is adopted. Then it would solve the infirmities of the bill and we could recommend passage. If that doesn't happen, we cannot.

Mr. Chair, I hope we will fix this bill's most glaring flaw by requiring

that a person actually be convicted of assault before they are rendered deportable--that is the Correa amendment. If not, I urge all Members to oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Boebert amendment requires the Department of Homeland Security to make publicly available on its website an annual report on the number of noncitizens deported for assaulting a law enforcement officer.

It is important for us to take a step back and remember what this bill is all about. This bill is attempting to add a new avenue for people who are living here lawfully in the United States to be deported.

By and large, we are talking about the ability to deport lawful permanent residents, people with green cards. These are people who my Republican colleagues like to say have done things the so-called ``right way.'' I sincerely hope that this report would not be used to further demonize immigrants.

However, on its face, I do not find this amendment to be objectionable.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Correa's amendment.

Any conviction requirement would greatly improve this bill. No one in this caucus condones serious assaults against law enforcement officers. As written, however, this bill goes well beyond serious offenses to include minor offenses and even actions for which an individual is never charged or convicted.

That is right. Under this bill, a conviction is not required. This will lead to bizarre consequences in which someone who had no intent of harming a law enforcement officer but nevertheless committed an act that constituted assault would be deemed deportable.

Mr. Chairman, remember the three examples I gave before: pushing a fireman out of the way of a falling beam. That would make the person deportable under this bill.

It is important to remember that convictions for serious assaults on law enforcement are already offenses that make someone deportable under current law. In fact, we have a wide variety of criminal grounds for deportation, nearly all of which require a conviction. That is why adding a requirement that an individual be convicted of assaulting a law enforcement officer to become deportable would significantly improve the bill.

However, it would not fix all the issues associated with this bill. For example, the bill does not require an intent to cause harm or any physical injury which would sweep in very low-level offenses.

Since the bill only impacts people who are here legally, the prospect of deporting longtime members of our communities for very minor offenses is deeply concerning, but the bill would be improved by this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, the majority has brought forward a cruel, extreme, and unworkable piece of legislation, which would wreck our economy, destroy the asylum system, criminalize visa overstays, send unaccompanied children back to dangerous situations, and jail children indefinitely.

Once again, my Republican colleagues show us that they are not interested in finding real solutions to tough issues. This bill attempts to combine a variety of different bills, each one more cruel and heartless than the last into one contradictory and overlapping mess. This bill has no chance of being enacted into law and it is nothing more than pure political theater.

My Republican colleagues are trying to take us back to the failed, illegal, and immoral policies of the Trump administration. Former President Trump's radical, inhumane, and racist immigration actions weakened the U.S. economy, undermined our moral standing in the world, and did not make us any safer.

While trampling on some of our most deeply held American values, his erratic approach also failed to stem the flow of migrants across our border. Let's be very clear about what this legislation would do. When taken together, this bill serves as a wholesale ban on asylum. No one would be able to seek asylum in the United States if they cross between ports of entry or if they had or could have had even temporary status in a third country.

Let me give you an example of what this means. If the Russian dissident Aleksey Navalny, who Putin attempted to poison twice, was somehow released from his prison in Siberia and took a flight to seek political asylum in the United States, but the plane touched down for refueling in Bulgaria, he would have to stay in Bulgaria. He couldn't come to the United States.

During the Judiciary Committee's markup, Democrats offered a variety of amendments to exempt the most vulnerable from some of these draconian requirements. This included those fleeing Communist and totalitarian regimes and unaccompanied children, but the majority was not even willing to exempt children under a year old.

The one place where we were able to make some bipartisan headway was on the issue of E-Verify. E-Verify is an electronic employment eligibility verification system that began as a voluntary pilot program and is currently

used by a small percentage of the Nation's employers.

This bill would make that system mandatory for all employers in the United States. Without providing other reforms, however, including any meaningful opportunity for undocumented workers to regularize their status, this title would damage the U.S. economy, harm American workers, and result in billions of dollars in lost government revenue.

In particular, mandatory E-Verify would decimate the agriculture industry, putting U.S. farms out of business, shipping millions of American jobs overseas, and increasing U.S. reliance on imported food. Mandatory E-Verify would result in hundreds of thousands of unfilled farm jobs and would leave unpicked crops rotting in the fields as we saw in Georgia in 2011 when a mandatory E-Verify law in the State resulted in over 11,000 farm jobs going unfilled during the peak harvest season.

Unfortunately, it appears that some of my Republican colleagues with significant agricultural interest in their districts are now willing to support this draconian legislation. Despite sincere concerns about how this provision would affect their constituents, they have caved to Republican leadership with the mere addition of a sense of Congress. That is pathetic.

I have only scratched the surface of the many problems contained in this legislation. I have not even mentioned how this bill strips all protections from unaccompanied children and requires all families who come to our borders seeking protection to be detained indefinitely or the extreme lengths to which it goes to narrow the eligibility grounds for asylum or how this bill would severely restrict this and any future administration's ability to parole individuals into the United States, even going so far as to end the current parole initiatives for Ukrainians fleeing Russia and for certain military families.

What this means is that no Ukrainians fleeing the war with Russia would be allowed into this country. It also means that all Ukrainians here after a certain time would have to return to Ukraine, even if the war is still going on.

Mr. Speaker, immigration reform is a complicated problem that requires complicated solutions, and an enforcement-only strategy simply doesn't work. Democrats have put forward real proposals, and we stand ready to work with serious Republicans to pass meaningful solutions.

Democrats take this humanitarian crisis seriously. Our proposals address the root causes of migration, improve border security, and create additional legal pathways for people to enter the United States lawfully.

But Republicans have chosen a narrow path that imposes extreme pain and hardship on the most vulnerable people, while doing nothing to actually solve the problem.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose this wrongheaded bill, and I ask the majority to go back to the drawing board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the rhetoric on the other side, it is one of the very few times I say to myself: Thank God for the existence of the United States Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto).

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

Mr. Speaker, organizations, associations, and industry leaders from across the political spectrum oppose passage of H.R. 2, the child deportation act. They include among them the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Kids in Need of Defense, Unidos, and National Education Association.

This bill is a microcosm of what we have seen in the first 4\1/2\ months of this new Republican majority, a chaotic majority that has no real interest in legislating or making positive change. Instead, they pass cruel and unworkable messaging bills that have no chance of becoming law and are dead in the U.S. Senate, and then they pat themselves on the back.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this draconian and unworkable bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 734, the so-called Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.

I say so-called because there is really nothing in this bill to protect women and girls in sports. It is telling that every amendment submitted by a Democrat to actually strengthen protections, such as addressing unequal funding, was ruled out as not germane by Republicans.

There are many real issues facing our Nation's women's and girls' sports teams, including disproportionate funding and resources compared to their male counterparts, but transgender athletes are not one of them.

Every sports federation supports transgender athletes competing on an equal basis, seeing no inherent advantage in sports competition for transgender athletes.

Transgender young people experience increased incidences of bullying, rejection, and discrimination, and nearly half of trans women and girls report seriously considering suicide in the past year.

Why would we consider this hateful legislation that aims to isolate an already vulnerable group of children further?

Mr. Chair, I am proud to have been the first Member of Congress to speak out in support of transgender rights on the House floor. I do not support traumatizing young children by subjecting them to intrusive genital inspections.

Mr. Chair, I am proud to urge my colleagues to oppose this hateful bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Grijalva for yielding and for his leadership in opposition to the polluters over people act.

I must say that the concern of the gentleman from New Jersey--we just heard about ocean animals--is touching, considering the effect that climate change will have on all wildlife and all of us, for that matter.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bad faith amendment aimed at slowing our Nation's transition to the affordable clean energy economy we need to address the climate crisis and create good-paying American jobs. With nearly 164,000 New Yorkers already working in the clean energy industry, the State is expected to create more than 10,000 additional jobs through its commitment to developing 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy in the coming years.

Mr. Chairman, if you are worried about the potential adverse effects of wind energy development, you will be pleased to know that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is already required to perform substantial environmental reviews. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's Renewable Energy Program subject matter experts are best equipped to analyze potential environmental and industry impacts of offshore wind.

Considering this, it is strange that my colleague from New Jersey is supporting an appropriations request to defund the Renewable Energy Program.

It is also strange that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim to worry about the industry's impact on whales when most of them oppose the

North Atlantic right whale vessel strike reduction rule. The data shows that most whale killings are attributed to vessel strikes.

Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a bad faith attack on offshore wind, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my esteemed constituents, Alvin Perlmutter.

Alvin is the Executive Producer and Director of the Independent Production Fund, and President of Alvin H. Perlmutter, Inc. and has produced highly acclaimed informational programming for over fifty years. Prior to forming his own company, Mr. Perlmutter served as NBC News Vice President where he was responsible for all network documentaries and news magazine programs, and earlier as Director of Public Affairs Programming and Program Manager of WNBC-TV, New York.

Born and raised in Poughkeepsie, New York, he attended Colgate University and graduated from Syracuse University. Early in his career he was a radio newscaster before serving as Radio-TV Officer in the U.S. 1st Army coordinating with major broadcast networks in the Eastern

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this resolution, and I want to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman and the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

For all those reasons, we cannot withdraw our 900 troops now because of what was said about ISIS.

But in addition to that, we are defending the Kurds against certain slaughter at the hands of the Peshmerga if we were to withdraw our troops.

The Turks, as we know, are supporting the Peshmerga. In addition to which, if we were to withdraw our troops, that increases the worry that Israel has to have about Iran, and that increases the odds of a conflict between Israel and Iran, which is the last thing the Middle East needs or the world needs.

For all these reasons, I strongly urge this body to reject this resolution. We truly should review all of the AUMFs we have lying around. I didn't know we had one from 1991. This resolution is the wrong vehicle, and it is productive of chaos and probably slaughter. I, therefore, oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the NYPD 19th Precinct Community Council. Precinct Community Councils have existed in various forms in New York since the 1940's and provide the community with a direct line of communication to their local NYPD precinct. Council members regularly meet with the precinct Commanding Officer and Community Affairs Officers to discuss public safety issues, provide feedback and input regarding local policing services, and organize events like street fairs and beautification programs for the neighborhood.

Since 1973, the NYPD 19th Precinct Community Council has brought together residents who volunteer their time and resources to ensure that the Upper East Side is a safe and thriving neighborhood. In addition to hosting an annual street fair that raises funds to assist with the needs of the precinct and sponsoring a National Night Out Against Crime event every summer, the Council constantly seeks to provide new opportunities for the public to interface with their local police officers and promote crime prevention awareness. The Council has also sponsored and recruited volunteers for NYPD initiatives including the Court Monitoring and Block Watchers programs.

I applaud the NYPD 19th Precinct Community Council and its volunteers for their commitment to pubic safety and the quality of life of their neighbors. I am proud to honor the Council's contributions to the Upper East Side over the past fifty years and recognize it as a successful model for police-community partnerships across the city. The legacy of the Council's work will be felt for generations and I wish for its continued success in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution lists many Communist dictators, but it doesn't list any of the capitalist dictators--from Hitler to Mussolini to Franco to Salazar to Peron, and so many more, because the issue is not socialism, the issue is tyranny.

The second issue is the progress of the American people. Because every single issue of progress from Medicare to Medicaid to the Affordable Care Act to public housing to Social Security has been called by Republican leaders at the time ``socialist.''

This is not an attack on tyranny. This is an attack on all of these programs. This is an attack on Medicare, on Social Security, on public housing, on Federal aid to education, on everything the Republicans have quoted ``socialist'' when they were first enacted, and they still want to get rid of.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Moh Sharma for her tireless work for the House Judiciary Committee.

Within the U.S. House of Representatives, Moh is an institution. Prior to serving on the Committee, Moh worked for Representative Judy Chu of California, the Democratic Caucus under then-Chairman Xavier Becerra, and the House Small Business Committee under then-Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez. In each of those jobs, with kindness and care, Moh made certain that her members were prepared for every hearing, every markup, and every trip to the House floor. She dispensed sage advice along with fact sheets, issue briefs, and summaries of floor activity. There is virtually no Democratic office in the House that has not worked with her on some project, and everyone with whom she has worked walks away impressed by her calm and her expertise.

And, of course, Moh has been a mentor and role model to an entire generation of staffers on Capitol Hill. Over the years, she has served in various leadership positions within the Congressional Asian Pacific American Staff Association, including as its president from 2013 to 2019 and as the founder of its advisory board. A graduate of the City University of New York School of Law, she has also served as president of the South Asian Bar Association of Washington, D.C. and remains on its board today.

Underlying these achievements is a steady commitment to diversity, inclusion, and opportunity for all who would make America their home.

Moh came to the Committee in 2019 to help with, and eventually to direct, our member services operation. As a member of my senior staff and one of the Committee's most trusted advisors, she oversaw our legislative agenda, whipped our markups, and managed our activity on the House floor.

Moh seemed to know where every one of our members could be found at any moment we might need them--no small feat in the COVID-19 era--and managed to cajole more than one of us back into the hearing room for a key moment in a markup. This past Congress, no vote in our hearing room was taken without Moh first accounting for every member of the Committee, and no vote was gaveled closed without a knowing nod from Moh to the Chair.

The quality of her work is evident. l know--from a report that Moh herself compiled--that, in the 117th Congress alone, our Committee marked up more than 100 bills, passed more than 100 bills on the House floor, and sent over 40 bills to President Biden for his signature. We owe every one of these victories, in no small part, to Moh's patience and persistence.

Moh is not traveling far. She has joined the office of Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and the Committee's loss is most definitely the Leader's gain.

Nevertheless, we will miss Moh very much. I thank her for her service to the Committee and I look forward, very much, to watching her contribute to the cause for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise along with Rep. David Cicilline, longtime Chair of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, to thank Slade Bond for his service to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Slade came to the Committee after serving as legislative counsel to Representative Hank Johnson. Prior to that, Slade was a law clerk for the Center for Democracy and Technology. Slade received his B.A. from Mary Washington College, his J.D. from the University of Kansas School of Law, and his LL.M from the George Washington University Law School.

Slade joined the Committee in March 2014, serving as Democratic Counsel and then Chief Democratic Counsel for the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law. For the past 4 years, Slade has served as Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law.

Throughout his service on the Committee, Slade has provided Members and staff with strategic advice and leadership on a range of legal and policy issues related to competition, bankruptcy, arbitration, commercial contracts, and federal agencies. Slade also has acted as a generous mentor and advisor for junior colleagues on the Committee, setting an example as a superlative staff member.

During his tenure as Chief Counsel for the Antitrust Subcommittee, Slade applied his keen intellect, conscientiousness, and creativity to advance the priorities of the Subcommittee. Slade supervised staff and led Member preparation for over two dozen hearings and markups, including a 29-hour markup that resulted in Committee passage of a suite of six bills to restore competition online.

Notable among his many accomplishments is his leadership of a historic, 16-month, top-to-bottom investigation of competition in digital markets. Slade assembled a dedicated team of counsels, technologists, fellows, special assistants, and clerks to examine the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google in the digital economy. He coordinated and supervised the team's review of nearly 1.3 million documents; interviews with more than 240 market participants, former employees of the investigated platforms, and other individuals; and holding of 7 hearings with testimony from 38 witnesses, including a hearing with the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. In addition, Slade cowrote, and managed the drafting of, the culmination of this investigation: a 450-page report entitled ``Investigation of Competition in Digital Markets: Majority Staff Report and Recommendations,'' which the Committee adopted in April 2021 and published in June 2022.

Slade has developed a well-earned reputation for his excellent work with Members and staff from both parties, in both the House and the Senate, to shepherd important bills into law. These bills include legislation to reduce the cost of antitrust enforcement to taxpayers by modernizing merger filing fees, to protect our national security by requiring merging parties to disclose subsidies from foreign economic adversaries, to preserve the resources of state antitrust enforcers by exempting state enforcement of the federal antitrust laws from private multidistrict litigation, and to prohibit the enforceability of predispute arbitration agreements and non-disclosure agreements related to sexual-assault or sexual-harassment disputes.

The Committee, and Congress, will greatly miss Slade, but we look forward to working with him in his new role as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legislative Affairs.

We thank Slade for his tireless work ethic, acute attention to detail, impeccable work product, and enthusiasm for the mission of the Committee to ensure economic justice for American consumers, workers, and small businesses.