Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 510, I mistakenly voted NAY when I intended to vote YEA.

Mr. Speaker, due to illness, I was unable to vote in the first vote series on 12/10/24. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 493; YEA on Roll Call No. 494; YEA on Roll Call No. 495; and YEA on Roll Call No. 496.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize and congratulate St. Johns County Chamber of Commerce, located in St. Augustine, Florida, on its historic 120 years of outstanding service to our community. Since 1904, St. Johns County Chamber of Commerce has played an important role in promoting economic development, business growth, education, and quality of life in St. Johns County.

The Chamber has been a driving force in encouraging collaboration between local businesses, government, and community organizations to help transform our area into a hub for commerce, innovation, and cultural enrichment.

Over the last century, the Chamber has provided essential support to local businesses of all sizes, advocating for policies that foster economic prosperity for our local economy and workforce. Thanks to its exceptional leadership, the Chamber has helped St. Johns County achieve the economic success and vitality we see today.

On this historic occasion, I congratulate and recognize St. Johns County Chamber of Commerce on its momentous 120th anniversary. I thank the Chamber and its members for their dedication and service to St. Johns County as a whole. May our community, with the help of the St. Johns County Chamber of Commerce, continue to flourish and prosper for centuries to come.

Mr. Speaker, this November, Floridians in my home State are going to be asked to vote on two constitutional amendments, State constitutional amendments. Not only am I opposed to both amendments, but I am vehemently against using the constitutional referendum process in the State of Florida to legislate. That is not what the referendum process was created for. It was designed to amend our State constitution, not to legislate.

We have a legislature. We have a process to pass laws that do not involve radically changing our constitution. The referendum process seeks to circumvent Florida's legislative process by offering quick, easy, and often worse fixes to complicated problems.

Need I remind everyone--Mr. Speaker, this is amazing--that in Florida's State Constitution, we have pregnant pigs discussed. I am not making that up.

If you are unfamiliar, in 2002, Floridians passed a constitutional referendum that made it unlawful to confine a pregnant pig in an enclosure that would prevent her from being able to turn around safely in that pen. That is in our constitution. We were the laughingstock of the Nation.

While Florida's Constitution is silent on the rights of cows, horses, chickens, or other barnyard animals, it addresses in considerable detail the rights of pregnant pigs. That is unbelievable. We passed that into Florida law.

With referendums, voters are forced to make decisions about complicated issues with the little information they receive, which is sometimes often just from political messaging, TV and radio ads. It is whoever can buy the most influence through the media who gets their referendum passed by the people.

For those of you who don't know, Florida's referendum process requires signatures in support of a proposed amendment from 8 percent of the total votes cast statewide in the last Presidential election from one-half of the 27 congressional districts in the State of Florida.

Now, that is a tough challenge. It is an expensive challenge. It is a huge undertaking that is usually only backed by large organizations with immense financial capability. This is not something for the people. They buy and sell an idea they can't get passed through our State legislature. That is what this special interest money is able to buy.

State constitutions should be what define the supreme law governing a State, the civil liberties and the rights of its people and the structure and power of the State's government. It is a governing document. What we put in should be carefully defined and agreed upon.

Unlike writing legislation, definitions are not even required in these constitutional referendums as long as the amendment is ``clear to voters.'' That leaves so much room for interpretation, and it is up to the State to host a lot of unnecessary lawsuits.

That brings me to our current predicament this November. Neither Amendment 3 nor Amendment 4, I believe, should be voted on at the ballot box. These are structural State constitution issues. That is what referendums should be used for, not this Florida Amendment 3.

The issue needs to be thoroughly examined and decided on by our Florida State Legislature and the Governor. We are a democratic republic for a reason. Referendums are shortcuts to hard answers. In order to govern well, we must leave the legislating to our State legislatures.

Now, I am rising today firmly opposed to Amendment 3, which, as you can see, is the Marijuana Legalization Initiative, a referendum that Floridians are being asked to vote on this November at the ballot box.

There are so many misunderstandings about what this referendum will actually do, so let's get into them.

First, this amendment would not legalize homegrown marijuana, as you see in the top right here. This amendment, instead, allows only State- licensed entities to acquire, cultivate, process, manufacture, sell, and distribute marijuana and related accessories.

Currently, medical marijuana treatment centers are the only State- licensed entities. They will remain the only ones allowed to trade marijuana in the State of Florida, so, instantly, you create pretty much a monopoly.

If someone wanted to legally grow and/or sell marijuana products, they would have to get approval from the State legislature first, but this will create a monopoly for big marijuana corporations that already have licenses to legally sell marijuana to anyone over 21 in the State.

Now, this is one of the most amazing parts of this that you never hear talked about in the ads that they actually are producing, and that is the fact that these corporations that are going to have this monopoly also get legalized immunity.

It will not get fentanyl-laced marijuana off our streets, as some have said. Supporters of this amendment claim it will better regulate the marijuana circulating, but the evidence tells a very different story.

In States where recreational marijuana has already been legalized, we have seen illegal drug markets flourish. People still turn to illegal and unsanctioned drug dealers to purchase marijuana because it is cheaper or easier to purchase, no matter your age.

According to Rutgers' Center of Alcohol and Substance Use Studies, California, which legalized it, produces about 40 percent of the Nation's marijuana, the vast majority of it grown by unlicensed growers. With three-quarters of the U.S. marijuana market made up of illegal products, that means that California is fueling a massive underground economy.

Of course, with a flourishing black market comes an increase in crime. Again, take California for example. It was the first State in the Nation to legalize the medical use of the drug in 1996. The State would go on to legalize recreational use in 2016.

Recent California police reports suggest that arrests for marijuana- related crimes have increased following legalization. Among such reports, there was a series of police records secured by the Los Angeles Times in early 2019 showing that arrests actually rose 166 percent since 1996.

Just this year, California has reported several massive illegal cannabis busts, with one resulting in the confiscation of over $1 million worth of illicit weed cultivated by unlicensed growers.

It doesn't go away. It just stays underground.

California's Department of Cannabis Control has raided at least 60 alleged grow houses over the past 2 years, and they suspect well over 100 more remain in operation. You heard me right: California actually had to create a separate department to go after the marijuana.

Rutgers also suggests illegal operations have increased in States where it has been legalized due to lax oversight, with some sellers skipping the acquisition of a legal license yet still operating out of storefronts, presenting themselves as licensed dealers.

Mr. Speaker, we do not want this in Florida. We do not need this in our community. We certainly don't need it in our own backyards.

Legalized weed sales do not get rid of dangerous fentanyl-laced marijuana either, another lie that is being told on the television ads that are trying to procure support for the referendum on Amendment 3.

In fact, in Missouri, a State where recreational marijuana is legal for people over 21 years of age, doctors are seeing more cases of marijuana being mixed with fentanyl--more, not less.

According to Dr. Michael Wenzinger, a psychiatrist at the Washington University School of Medicine, they have seen an increase in cases of teenagers inadvertently consuming these deadly combinations.

Dr. Wenzinger also suggests that people believe that since weed is sold in dispensaries, it is safe to consume. That is a lie. They are lulled into a false sense of security, thinking they are buying legal marijuana when, all too often, that is not the case.

Reports also show State law enforcement has found marijuana laced with fentanyl in Illinois and New York, two States where recreational use is legal, as well as Alabama and Louisiana, States where medical marijuana is legal.

It is clear that even in States with government-regulated dispensaries at the ready, people still choose to buy their marijuana on the black market, mainly, as we all know, because of their age.

We have also seen the potency of marijuana increase drastically. Mr. Speaker, this is the part of this issue that concerns me as a 41-year law enforcement officer. The percentage of THC, the main psychoactive component in cannabis, has increased by more than 200 percent from 1995 to 2015--more than 200 percent.

Even more concerning, a May study in the journal of Psychological Medicine found that schizophrenia cases in men ages 21 to 30 may have been preventable by up to 30 percent without the persistent use of marijuana.

We think we have a mental health issue in this country now. Wait until we have had all these 21- to 25-year-old or 18- to 25-year-old young developing brains on high levels of THC for extended periods of time, and we begin to see the increase in schizophrenia, paranoia, and other psychotic breaks.

Florida's Amendment 3 increases crime and illegal distribution of marijuana. It doesn't reduce it.

It monopolizes the industry, creates blanket legal immunity for big marijuana corporations, does not legalize home growth, and promotes marijuana use that is linked to psychotic disorders.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I am adamantly opposed to Florida's Amendment 3 in November.

I also want to mention Amendment 4, as I discussed earlier, because Floridians are being asked to vote on Amendment 4, and this one really is just a travesty. If passed, this amendment would prevent any law from prohibiting, penalizing, delaying, or restricting abortion before viability, or when necessary to protect the patient's health, placing the decision in the hands of the healthcare provider.

Here is what is amazing about this: Under current Florida State law, in order to receive an abortion, it must occur before the baby reaches 6 weeks of gestation. However, there are exceptions built into the State law, including rape, incest, and human trafficking, that allow for the procedure up to 15 weeks of pregnancy.

It also allows physicians--physicians, and I say that specifically-- to terminate a pregnancy if necessary to save the life, not just for health reasons, but to save the life of the mother or to prevent a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment. Two physicians are required to approve such a procedure.

Let's get this straight. First, Amendment 4 does not define what ``viability,'' ``healthcare provider,'' or ``patient's health'' means. As you see in the left bottom here, it does not define any of that.

Under current Florida statutes, ``viability'' has been defined as the state of fetal development when the life of a fetus is sustainable outside the womb through standard medical measures, but there is no universal consensus.

As science continues to advance, the age of viability of a fetus has become earlier. In the 1960s, infants weighing less than 1 kilogram, equivalent to about 27 weeks, were considered nonviable. In the 1970s, when Roe v. Wade was established, viability was estimated to be between 24 to 28 weeks. Today, it is closer to 23 to 24 weeks, with some hospitals even successfully delivering and caring for babies at 22 weeks.

Not only does Amendment 4 not define ``viability,'' it doesn't define ``healthcare provider,'' leaving it up to interpretation. This means anyone can decide a woman should get an abortion, and I mean really anyone.

``Patient's health'' is left up to the interpretation of these so- called healthcare providers, whoever they are. It is not to save the life. It could be for any reason.

Under current Florida State law, abortions are not allowed past 6 weeks. With this amendment, there is really no limit to when an abortion can be performed. It says abortions are legal ``before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health.''

A so-called healthcare provider could decide it is best for the patient's health to terminate that pregnancy at 9 months, as late as they want, and with total disregard for the viability of the baby.

Mr. Speaker, they are talking about taking limbs off of babies when they are aborted at 9 months, ripping them apart in the womb when they can feel pain. We know they feel that pain.

It is unconscionable that that is going on in America. They want it to go on. It is actually already happening. In Wisconsin, there are eight documented cases. This is essentially approving a rubber stamp for late-term abortions going even further than Roe v. Wade. This is extreme.

With Roe v. Wade, in the first trimester, zero to 12 weeks, there was almost no regulation.

In the second, 13 to 27 weeks, there were regulations to protect women's health when necessary.

In the third trimester, 28 to 40 weeks, it allowed States to ban abortions so long as exceptions were made to protect the life and health of the mother, as defined by a physician, I might add.

Amendment 4 would allow abortions without restrictions up to viability, which is currently believed to be 23 weeks, a time that is well into the second trimester. Even under Roe v. Wade it would have only been allowed at that time to protect the woman's health or life.

With amendment 4 in Florida, what they are trying to do is that abortion could occur for whatever reason one decides whenever they decide.

As you can see in the lower left here, Mr. Speaker, this removes parental approval, parental consent. Currently, minors have to get parental consent to get a tattoo, to have their ears pierced, or any other medical procedure. That is not Florida law.

This amendment, however, would only require notification but not permission. That means parents can be notified immediately before or even after their 14-year-old daughter has had an abortion by one of these healthcare providers at any time in her pregnancy. There is no parental consent required.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you watch the television ads that are being run in the State of Florida right now, you would not think that to be the case. This constitutional amendment No. 4 is the most deceptive amendment I have ever seen. It is not what it seems, and it has no place being voted on in the ballot box.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is amendment 4. This is amendment 4 printed out. It is just this little piece at the top. It is less than one-quarter of a page to take the life of a baby at 9 months old, where we are going to rip its limbs off to abort it. It is less than one- quarter of a page.

This is a tax referendum, and it is eight pages. We are more clear about how we are going to cut taxes than we are about how we are going to execute a baby in the womb. Mr. Speaker, tell me that is not deceptive.

The ads that they run are so misleading. They create such falsehoods. A referendum on taxable values of a home is far more fleshed out and defined than one concerning the life of a child. It is ridiculous.

This is bad legislation. This is a bad way to legislate. In our Constitution, it is a bait and switch trying to fool Floridians into changing our constitution to include abortion without any restrictions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Floridians to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Referendums are shortcuts to hard answers. Let's leave the hard answers to the State legislature where they belong. That is why we are a democratic republic. Let them do their job. Do not allow those with special interest money to decide what the law is going to be in Florida.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Mr. Cullen Eddie Chalker of Jacksonville, Florida, on the occasion of his 100th birthday and to congratulate him for his many years of dedicated service in the United States Navy and on the Jacksonville Fire Department.

Mr. Chalker was born on July 10, 1924, in Fernandina Beach, Florida. At 17 years old, he enlisted in the United States Navy just months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. After 4 years of service to our country, he was discharged on April 6, 1946, as a seaman first class, aviation mechanics mate, U.S. Navy Reserve.

Shortly after completing his military service, Mr. Chalker joined the Jacksonville Fire Department as an entry-level fire private, eventually rising through the ranks to the position of district fire chief.

Not long after joining the Jacksonville Fire Department, he met the love of his life, Illa ``Dubie'' Mae. The two were married in April 1949, and by 1952, they had saved up enough money to buy a home on Fourth Avenue North in Jacksonville Beach, a home that Mr. Chalker still lives in 72 years later. Sadly, after 64 years of marriage, Mrs. Chalker passed away in 2013.

I congratulate him on his milestone 100 years.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the oldest companies that call northeast Florida home. Swisher, a family-owned business, is celebrating 100 years this month of operating in Jacksonville, Florida.

Although the company was founded in Ohio in 1861, they relocated to Jacksonville in 1924. Over the past century, Swisher's commitment to innovation, product quality, and customer satisfaction has made it a leader in the industry.

Swisher Sweets Cigars, which debuted in 1958, remains the number one selling cigar by volume in the world. Swisher's philanthropic legacy continues through its support of our Nation's heroes, their families, and our local community.

I congratulate Swisher for 100 years in Jacksonville and 162 years in business. We thank you for your contributions to the historic Springfield neighborhood and the entire Jacksonville region.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Matthew Gapinski of Jacksonville, Florida, for his 42 years of dedicated Federal service to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and to our Nation.

He graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1984 and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Following graduation, he spent 8 years on Active-Duty assignments in Korea, North Carolina, and, Kevin, in your State, California.

He continued his service in the U.S. Army Reserves as commander of a company and served on Active Duty with the 350th Civil Affairs for Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and 2004. He retired from the Army Reserves in September 2008 at the rank of lieutenant colonel.

Matt graduated from Stanford University with his master's in environmental engineering and science and began his civilian career in 1994 working at the Presidio of San Francisco.

Following that role, he worked for the Army Corps at the San Francisco District in the planning division and then to the Savannah division as a project manager and eventually the Jacksonville District as a senior project manager.

Since 2007, Matt has been the executive assistant and congressional liaison for the Jacksonville District where he served as the main point of contact for all congressional inquiries related to the district's civil works and military programs.

I can tell you, in that role, he also supported Jacksonville District Commanders, the South Atlantic Division Commanders, Chief of Engineers, and the Assistant Secretaries of the Army for Civil Works in their annual testimony before Congress and in their written responses to inquiries from Congress.

During this time, Matt also served temporarily as the acting deputy commander of the Jacksonville District and chief of the Military, Interagency, and International branch.

Through his expert knowledge of the civil works process, Matt consistently provided timely and accurate information and service to the public, to Members of Congress and their staff, and really was just an amazing resource for all of us in northeast Florida.

Matt has received numerous awards in recognition of his outstanding efforts, including the Superior Civilian Service Medal and the Legion of Merit.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to join me today to thank Mr. Gapinski for his contributions to the Corps of Engineers, his local community, and the United States of America.

I sincerely wish Matt and his wife, Nina Kannatt, every success in the future and a very restful retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the critical public health work carried out by our Nation's mosquito control professionals.

Mosquitoes are not just a nuisance. In fact, they are also vectors for deadly diseases like malaria, Zika, and the famous West Nile virus.

The world-renowned Anastasia Mosquito Control District, which is located in my district in St. Johns County, St. Augustine, Florida, was initially formed thanks to Floridians who wanted to live mosquito-free.

Since 1948, the AMCD has served more than 320,000 Floridians in St. Johns County. AMCD is now the leader in education and applied research all across the world in the field of mosquito control, not just in Florida, not in just the United States, but literally across the globe.

I urge my colleagues to meet with their mosquito control professionals to learn more about this critical mission because it truly is about our healthcare in America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. This LEOSA Reform Act will expand the ability of qualified officers, whether active, retired, or no longer in law enforcement, to carry concealed firearms in any State or territory, regardless of State or local laws.

If we trust our law enforcement officers to carry guns while they are wearing a badge, why wouldn't we trust them to carry one on State and Federal property in their retirement?

There is no one better trained and equipped to safely use and carry these firearms. In fact, we encourage our officers at the State and local level to carry their firearms when they are off duty because they are never off duty.

They are always required to respond if an incident occurs in their presence. Officers carry off-duty anyway, but what this does is expand that protective force multiplier concept to the entire country. I don't see what is wrong with that. In fact, I think it makes good sense that we would want good men and women who are qualified to carry firearms to protect those who do not.

This bill also gives retired officers more flexibility in the timing of their firearms recertification, reducing unnecessary burdens while ensuring that they are still properly trained in firearm proficiency. They must remain proficient.

Officers would be able to carry a concealed firearm if they qualify yearly, or whatever their State may require, up to a 3-year limit.

The LEOSA Reform Act also extends concealed carry rights into, as you heard earlier, certain Federal facilities, such as post offices and Social Security Administration offices, whether or not they are there in an official capacity.

I am not sure how that would create a lot of confusion. We carry firearms into all sorts of facilities now. This simply makes it open to these Federal facilities.

This legislation very importantly will also exempt LEOSA-certified officers from State magazine capacity limits, which is very important. This will simplify concealed carry for officers as they travel across cities and States, ensuring that, in various locations, their local laws don't interfere with the operational readiness of these officers.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, as a former sheriff, I have seen how law-abiding citizens have used legally owned and carried firearms to protect their lives, their family's lives, and the lives of others who they don't even know in many situations in my own hometown of Jacksonville. These officers have dedicated their lives to protecting the public. We must leverage every bit of their training and skills to keep our communities safe even when they are out of uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill to keep our police officers ready to protect our communities wherever they may find themselves. This will be a tremendous force multiplier for all of our

State and local law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Speaker, ``As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality, and justice.''

Mr. Speaker, that is the opening line of the Law Enforcement Officers Code of Ethics, a code every officer whose name is etched into the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial lived and died by.

Today, I rise to honor two fallen police officers from my district whose names were added to the memorial wall this year, Sergeant Michael Paul Kunovich and Deputy Sheriff Peder Thomas Johnson.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, May 19, 2023, following the arrest of a combative suspect armed with a knife, Sergeant Michael Paul Kunovich suffered a fatal heart attack from the physical exertion and stress caused while apprehending the fleeing suspect.

Sergeant Kunovich served 26 years in the St. Johns County Sheriff's Office. He received numerous awards, including a Meritorious Service Award in 2023 and 2013, an Exceptional Service Award in 2010, and many letters of commendation. Sergeant Kunovich also served on the SWAT team for 5 years while earning his bachelor's degree in public administration from Flagler College.

Through and through, Sergeant Kunovich was a servant leader, dedicated to protecting his community until the end of his watch. He will be greatly missed by the whole northeast Florida law enforcement community.

My thoughts and prayers are with his family, including his two sons, Michael Jr. and Max; his friends; and the men and women of the St. Johns County Sheriff's Office.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to honor the life and service of Deputy Sheriff Peder Thomas Johnson who was shot and killed while investigating reports of a discharge of a firearm on December 24, 1913. That is right, 1913. You see, Mr. Speaker, Deputy Johnson served in the Duval County Sheriff's Office for 11 months before his end of watch over 110 years ago. However, until this year, he had never been recognized. We are forever grateful for his service and the heroic legacy that he left behind.

We promise our officers every day that, as has been said so eloquently by my colleague here, we will never forget. This is evidence tonight that we will never forget if an officer is called upon to lay down that full measure of devotion.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: ``The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.''

Mr. Speaker, these two men whom we honor tonight lived well. May these heroes never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, as a law enforcement officer for 40 years, including 12 years as sheriff of Jacksonville, I have dedicated my life to protecting and serving my northeast Florida community alongside some of the finest men and women.

Now, in Congress it is my calling to protect those men and women who are serving today. Anyone who has put on a badge and answered the call of duty knows the dangers that may await. Sadly, that is the reality officers and their families accept each time they leave home.

In 2023, with a 30 percent increase in ambushing of law enforcement officers, 378 law enforcement officers were shot in the line of duty compared to 331 in 2022. That is a 13 percent increase in just 1 year.

These attacks must end. That is why I introduced the Protect and Serve Act, a bipartisan bill to increase penalties on those who want to target, ambush, and harm our police officers. I urge Congress to pass it.

If these bad actors want to target the police, then we in Congress should target them. It is our responsibility to protect those who protect us.

As anyone who has worked in law enforcement knows, losing a loved one, a colleague, or a friend in the line of duty changes you forever.

I know what officers go through every day when they put on their uniform and say goodbye to their families.

During my over 40-year career, I lost 26 colleagues and friends who laid down their lives in service to our community.

One police officer killed in an ambush is one too many. The increase in ambushes and dangerous rhetoric about law enforcement has left many agencies struggling now to hire and retain the best and the brightest. We must give agencies the tools they need to hire and keep these officers. That is also why I introduced the HELPER Act, a bicameral and bipartisan bill that I introduced in the House to make it easier for police officers and other public servants in our community to buy their first home.

Families everywhere are struggling to get by. In fact, many of our Nation's first responders and teachers are priced out of the very neighborhoods that they are called to serve. By making homeownership easier, the HELPER Act would work to boost the recruitment and retention of our dedicated public servants and help make our communities safer. Everyone benefits from being neighbors with those serving and protecting our way of life.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass these important bills to make our communities safer and deliver for our law enforcement officers nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, I just hope and pray that all of us can lead lives that are worthy of their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. I really appreciate him hosting this Special Order hour so that we can recognize the sacrifice of these two men.

As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind, to safeguard lives and property, to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression and intimidation, the peaceful against violence and disorder, and to respect the constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality, and justice.

Mr. Speaker, that is the code of ethics for every law enforcement officer across this great country. That is the code and the oath that binds us all together as law enforcement officers.

So as a former sheriff, I rise today with a truly heavy heart to honor the life of Lieutenant Michael Hoosock and of Michael Jensen.

Mr. Speaker, as you have heard, on Sunday, April 14, of 2024, Lieutenant Hoosock and Officer Jensen were killed in the line of duty while responding to a traffic stop that went awry. These officers' lives were suddenly and viciously taken while answering the call to protect and serve their community.

Lieutenant Hoosock was a brave servant leader and a devoted public servant, father, and husband. He served 17 years in the Onondaga County Sheriff's Office where he served wherever he was needed the most, I am told. Wherever they would send him, he gave his best.

He joined the sheriff's office in 2007, was promoted to lieutenant and was the commander of his unit's bomb squad.

According to those closest to him, Mr. Speaker, if you knew Lieutenant Hoosock, you felt like you were immediately his best friend.

He is survived by his wife, Caitlin, and their three children, and I cannot tell you how heartbroken we are for you.

Officer Michael Jensen was a lifelong athlete, who was also an accountant before joining the Syracuse Police Department. He graduated college with two business degrees and answered the call to serve his community less than 3 years ago.

However, just this past December, Officer Jensen was named Officer of the Month. That is the kind of officer he was. He is remembered for his infectious smile and his personal interactions with the residents throughout the Syracuse community.

My thoughts and prayers are with both officers' families and friends, the Onondaga County Sheriff's Office, the Syracuse Police Department, and the greater Syracuse community as they mourn this great loss.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: ``The purpose in life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you lived and lived well.''

These fine officers laid down their lives protecting the community that they loved. They lived their lives honorably, with compassion, and dedicated to serving and making a positive difference in the lives of others. Simply stated, Lieutenant Hoosock and Officer Jensen truly lived well.

I pray that we may all live our lives worthy of their sacrifice. May their service and sacrifice never be forgotten. May God bless them, and may God bless their loved ones.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding and I thank my colleague from Virginia for introducing this bill, the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023.

This is a poorly decided agreement on a court case where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as you just heard, was actually sued by the Center for Biological Diversity. They sued the Department of the Interior, and the agreement was: We will just throw them seven of our national wildlife refuges to get them to go away. That is not the best science. It is not based on science at all. In fact, it is best regulated by the States.

Our colleague across the aisle even said some States have actually shut down areas because of lead issues. That is what all of these States should be doing--managing these resources themselves. It should not be from some bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., trying to settle a lawsuit and throwing away people's rights to enjoy the land.

Millions of Americans, including myself, are avid outdoorsmen and - women who greatly enjoy hunting and fishing, and we depend on reliable access to these public lands and waters. That is why a ban on the cost- effective traditional lead ammo and tackle is so concerning. It will affect hunters, it will affect recreational and commercial anglers, and it will simply increase the cost which will reduce the participation by those who enjoy these two American pastimes.

As you heard earlier from my good friend from Georgia, it is a 25 percent higher cost for the nonleaded ammo versus the traditional lead ammo. When you start cutting that, you are going to cut the excise tax that actually provides money for wildlife conservation here in America.

States already have the ability, as I mentioned earlier, to regulate lands for conservation purposes. Instead of these Federal mandates we should be leaning on the States that know an area's conservation needs better than anyone else.

State-driven, public-private partnerships are much better than top- down Federal mandates that do not take into consideration site-specific science necessary to make these decisions.

In fact, the Center for Biological Diversity in their suit said that lead hunting and fishing on these lands might or could create lead issues. They used words like ``could'' or ``might.'' There is no science there, Mr. Speaker. This is strictly a top-down land grab.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill. We must protect our hunting and fishing in our national wildlife refuges. Let's leave it to the States and local authorities to decide what can and can't be used on public lands and keep the Biden administration's Green New Deal agenda out of these great American pastimes.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4639, the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, and all of the attending amendments, as well.

Mr. Chair, I also stand with, I think, every major law enforcement agency association in the country. This bill will only make our communities less safe by preventing local law enforcement and State law enforcement from being able to access information that has been legally collected and is publicly open-source information.

Every day, law enforcement officers use open-source, legally collected, and commercially available data. We use that to connect the dots to actually develop and find the leads that solve crimes like child abduction, drug trafficking, terrorism, and all sorts of different heinous crimes.

The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act will require law enforcement to get a warrant before they can access otherwise publicly open data.

Google and Facebook can access it. The Chinese can access it. The cartels and criminals can access it. Private actors can access it, but not the police. Only law enforcement will be blocked.

I can tell you, as a former sheriff, police officers work on time- sensitive cases every day where accessing this information quickly is a matter of life and death. I am a 40-year law enforcement officer, and I can think of dozens of cases where minutes mattered and my officers saved lives by accessing this data.

Some of the supporters of this bill say that all of those other folks who I just listed that still have access can't put you in jail. Let's be truthful here. The police can't put you in jail either without probable cause of a crime.

The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act will make communities far less safe by making officers' jobs harder. In fact, it helps out only the criminals.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous, antipolice bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is good to stand with him on this very important topic.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4639, which is the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act included in the rule before us today.

I have to tell you, I am standing shoulder to shoulder here. Although you don't see them, every major law enforcement agency in this country is standing with me in this opposition. The Fraternal Order of Police, Major County Sheriffs of America, Major Cities Chiefs Association, National Association of Police Organizations, National Sheriffs' Association, and the list goes on.

I am disappointed to say that the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act truly is one of the most antipolice bills I have seen since I have been in Congress.

No one's Fourth Amendment rights are being bought. No one's Fourth Amendment rights are being sold. No one's Fourth Amendment rights are being violated.

This bill will simply block law enforcement from accessing open- source, commercially available, lawfully collected data that can help them solve crimes. It can help them develop probable cause.

Google and Facebook can access this data. The Chinese can access this data. Cartels and criminals can access this data. But we are not going to let the police access this data.

Now, my advocates will say: Private citizens and foreign adversaries can't put you in jail. Well, that may be true. Some of them can actually do worse to you.

Here is the thing that we need to remember: No one can put you in jail without probable cause of committing a crime. This is open-source data. Only law enforcement will be blocked from collecting and accessing this data.

The bottom line is, the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act will make communities far less safe, Mr. Speaker.

I adamantly oppose this bill. I will still vote ``yes'' on the rule because I believe in our process of regular order that gives Members the opportunity to hear both sides, debate, offer amendments, and, ultimately, vote a bill up or down. I am absolutely good with that.

Lately, some of my colleagues claim that they want regular order, yet they vote against regular order time and time again when they join with the Democrats to take down a rule. Seven times, I think, since I have been in Congress we have seen these rules go down. It is their way or the highway, and that is sad.

We promised the American people we would do better. Voting down a rule is not doing better.

Mr. Speaker, let's pass this rule. Let's pass the bills included in this rule that will punish Iranian aggression toward our ally Israel. Then, let's defeat the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, which is only going to make our communities less safe.