Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2189, the so-called Law- Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act.

Law enforcement officers serve a critical role in promoting public safety. That is why we must give them the tools to do their job effectively and safely.

However, contrary to what so many of my colleagues have been told, H.R. 2189 does nothing to help law enforcement officers. In fact, it would put our law enforcement officers and so many others in great danger by giving dangerous people easy access to serious weapons.

By changing the definition of ``firearm,'' H.R. 2189 would create dangerous new loopholes in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act, exempting so-called less-than-lethal weapons from our gun laws, including those that require firearms to be traceable, detectable by security equipment, and not available to prohibited purchasers, like felons, fugitives, and domestic abusers. These exemptions would allow these weapons, which can be deadly, to be sold to anyone, including dangerous people, without having to undergo a background check.

Law enforcement has no need for this exemption. They are already exempt from many gun laws and already use all kinds of weapons, including those covered by this bill without any legal obstacles. In fact, police departments in all 50 States already use these tasers. We also know that State and local corrections officers are armed with tasers within prisons and jails across the country.

Let's be clear: This bill is designed to increase civilian purchases of these weapons, and we know this because it

includes an exemption from the NFA excise tax, which law enforcement already does not pay.

More than 3 years ago, prosecutors and legal experts at the Department of Justice sounded the alarm when they reviewed a prior version of this bill. These experts all agree that:

This bill would endanger our officers and communities by

weakening their efforts to keep weapons out of the hands of

dangerous persons.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives warned that:

These weapons could be used against law enforcement,

security personnel, or the public, creating an increased risk

of harm to public safety. They also would not be traceable if

used in a crime.

If this bill were truly about helping law enforcement, Republicans would have taken this feedback from the DOJ and the ATF and revised this bill, but they didn't. The bill before us today poses the same risk to public safety.

Many of my colleagues share my commitment to making sure law enforcement has all the tools that they need to keep themselves and our communities safe. Some of them cosponsored this legislation because they initially believed this bill was a genuine effort to do that. They have since learned the truth. Some joined Congressman Thompson's amendment, which would ensure that less-than-lethal weapons are not considered firearms only when they are used by law enforcement officers acting in their official capacity, addressing the alleged purpose of this legislation without creating a dangerous loophole. Republicans rejected that amendment.

Now that these Members, who once cosponsored this bill, see that this bill does not help law enforcement and will, in fact, endanger police and many others, they are now opposing this bill.

We must continue providing the resources and support that strengthen officer and community safety, not undermine them by removing the safeguards that keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous and violent criminals. We need to be preventing violence.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2189 does nothing to help law enforcement, who already uses these weapons in all 50 States. It does not provide any new tools or training that would reduce police shootings or promote the safety of officers or the public.

Instead, it makes dangerous weapons widely available to everyone, including those who should not have them. It allows those weapons to be untraceable, undetectable by equipment, and sold to anyone without a background check.

This bill is especially dangerous for those experiencing domestic violence since this bill provides easy, legal access to weapons that are designed to control and incapacitate their target and can be deadly. Groups that combat domestic violence and gun violence and who support public safety all oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters from various organizations opposing this bill.

February 5, 2026.

Hon. John Thune,

Senate Majority Leader,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Senate Minority Leader,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Democratic Leader,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

To Majority Leader Thune, Minority Leader Schumer, Speaker

Johnson, and Leader Jeffries: We write to express our strong

opposition to H.R. 2189/S. 1283, the Law Enforcement Innovate

to De-Escalate Act and H.R. 4242, the Innovate Less Lethal to

De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act. While the stated intent of

these pieces of legislation is to promote the use of ``new

less-than-lethal technologies, such as long-range tasers'' by

law enforcement in lieu of traditional firearms, they do not

reference law enforcement at all, and are unnecessary,

reckless, and would have far broader implications for public

safety. These bills would create a loophole for firearm

access by prohibited individuals by effectively creating a

new legal market for untraceable weapons. Additionally, they

will upend the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and

Explosives' (ATF) enforcement of firearm laws, allow for the

development and sale of weapons that are properly prohibited

by law, and make ``less-than-lethal'' devices that employ

explosive propellant available to the public, including

individuals convicted of serious violent crimes, without any

federal regulation. Furthermore, while both bills present

their own independent public safety concerns, in tandem,

there are effectively no limits to what kinds of ``less-than-

lethal'' weapon systems the gun industry may develop. Even

more troubling, the legislation contains no prohibition or

limitations on modifications that could turn these devices

into lethal weapons. While we applaud bipartisan efforts to

decrease the risk of lethality in law enforcement encounters

and commend Congress' commitment to encourage de-escalation

tactics, we oppose H.R. 2189/S. 1283 and H.R. 4242 as written

and urge members of Congress to oppose these bills in their

current form.

Unnecessary for Law Enforcement

The sponsors of these pieces of legislation contend that

their purpose is to increase access to and limit liability

for law enforcement use of certain less-than-lethal devices,

including specific types of TASERs, which are classified as

firearms because they use explosive propellant as opposed to

compressed gas. The text of these bills does not mention law

enforcement, either directly or by virtue of statutory

changes, in any capacity. Thus, the changes to the federal

code included in these bills win apply equally to all

persons, including individuals convicted of serious violent

crimes.

Federal law enforcement entities, such as ICE and CBP,

already widely employ such devices, and have entered into

procurement contracts worth over $35 million for Taser

systems in just the last few years, including at least $15

million for the Taser lo weapons system, a firearm-classified

less-than-lethal device.

Furthermore, state and local governments, along with their

accompanying law enforcement agencies, already procure and

deploy vast numbers of firearms, including less-than-lethal

devices classified as firearms. In fact, many of the civilian

requirements for firearms purchases are waived for agencies

and even individual officers purchasing weapons for service,

including background checks and prohibitions on purchasing

firearms across state lines. Such purchases are even exempted

from federal excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. Thus,

there is no federal constraint on law enforcement's

procurement of TASERs or other less-than-lethal devices that

are classified as firearms.

Proponents of these bills suggest that state and local law

enforcement are restrained from deploying firearm-classified

less-than-lethal devices, including TASERs that fall under

the definition of firearm, because of concerns about

liability, specifically that their use would inherently

constitute ``deadly force'' because of their firearm

classification. However, if such constraints exist at all,

they are a function of state or local laws. In fact, federal

regulations and courts have held that the use of less-than-

lethal devices, even those classified as firearms, does not

constitute deadly force on its own. Furthermore, deregulating

such devices under federal law would not absolve most law

enforcement agencies from such liability, as nearly every

single state has a statutory definition of firearm that is

functionally equal to that contained in U.S. code. Therefore,

removing these less-than-lethal devices from the federal

definition of ``firearm'' would not resolve this issue.

In fact, law enforcement agencies are already utilizing

firearm-classified less-than-lethal devices in every state at

every level: states, counties, towns, villages, townships,

and even correctional facilities have already deployed them

and many more are moving to adopt them. Moreover, even in

states with use of force policies that stipulate that the use

of a firearm constitutes deadly force, local department use

of force policies specifically enumerate that the Taser 10, a

firearm-classified device, constitutes ``non-lethal force.''

The Law Enforcement Innovate to

De-Escalate Act (H.R. 2189/S. 1283)

At its core, H.R. 2189/S. 1283 would deregulate ``less-

than-lethal projectile devices'' currently classified as

firearms under federal law and, therefore, subject to

important and long-standing public safety protections. In

doing so, these high-powered ``less-than-lethal'' devices

would become available to the general public and prohibited

persons alike without these protections all because this

legislation would no longer treat them as

``firearms.'' In addition, because H.R. 2189/S. 1283 do not

prohibit modification, there is nothing to prohibit a

convicted felon, domestic abuser, or anyone else for that

matter, in possession of such a ``less-than-lethal'' device

from turning it into a fully lethal weapon. At the same time,

this legislation would provide the firearms industry with a

roadmap to innovate ``less-than-lethal'' weapons that, but-

for H.R. 2189/S. 1283 would be considered ``firearms,'' to

make an end-run around existing federal law, which would

effectively establish a new, legal ghost gun market. H.R.

2189/S. 1283 radically alters the definition of ``firearm''

under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).

Under the GCA, a ``firearm'' includes ``any weapon which

will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a

projectile by the action of an explosive,'' as well as ``the

frame or receiver of any such weapon,'' which houses the

critical fire control components and is the only part of a

firearm that is regulated under federal law on its own.

H.R. 2189/S. 1283 changes this definition to create a new

class of weapons, ``less-than-lethal projectile devices,''

that are exempted from all federal regulation under the GCA

and would no longer require serialization of their frames or

receivers, background checks when they are transferred, or

paperwork for their manufacture, distribution, or sale.

Exempting these devices from basic public safety

requirements creates a dangerous loophole for prohibited

persons--such as individuals with felony or domestic violence

convictions--to access deadly weapons, creating a new legal

market for untraceable weapons. While H.R. 2189/S. 1283 does

stipulate that devices would need to be designed and intended

to be used in a manner not likely to cause death or serious

bodily harm, and that they may not be readily convertible to

fire ammunition commonly used in most other firearms, the

bill neither prohibits nor penalizes the modification of

these devices for such purposes, effectively deregulating

fIrearm access even for prohibited individuals.

Given the long history of modifying weapons to make them

even more dangerous, it is not hard to imagine scenarios

where unscrupulous gun industry actors would seize on this

dangerous definitional change to produce their own ``less-

than-lethal projectile devices'' that could later be more

easily modified to be fully lethal. For the last decade, the

gun industry used ambiguity in the existing regulation of

firearms to create a market for unfinished frames and

receivers, as well as kits to finish assembling them, which

were the basis for the ghost gun market before the ATF

promulgated a rule to regulate them as firearms. Aside from

frames or receivers, all other firearm components are

entirely unregulated under federal law, making it inevitable

that kits and parts to modify these ``less-than-lethal

projectile devices'' will become commercially available, and

schematics for 3D-printed conversion components will also

become available online.

More importantly, a change in the definition of ``firearm''

may upend all ATF enforcement of the law with regard to

firearms. The Supreme Court recently ruled in VanDerStok that

ATF's regulation entitled ``Definition of `Frame or Receiver'

and Identification of Firearms'' was properly conceived and

implemented--that ``the GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to

regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or

receivers. Changing the definition of ``firearm'' such that

an entire class of weapons (and their attending frames and

receivers) are no longer ``firearms'' would create new

opportunities for the industry to challenge and evade firearm

regulations. The Supreme Court's recent case law in

VanDerStok and Cargill, where the court ruled that bump

stocks did not satisfy the definition of ``machinegun,''

shows the importance of carefully crafted, thorough

definitions in firearms statutes.

While the legislation says that the device cannot be

``designed and intended and may not be readily converted to

accept and discharge . . . projectile[s] at a velocity

exceeding 500 feet per second,'' it ignores the fact that

such devices, as with all firearms, do not by themselves

determine the velocity of the projectiles they fire, but it

is the ammunition which is the determinant of velocity.

Further, while the bill prohibits manufactured devices from

being able to accept ammunition ``commonly used in handguns,

rifles, and shotguns,'' the frame or receiver of a firearm

often does not determine the type of ammunition that it can

fire on its own. Often, it is the other, unregulated

components of the firearm that determine that factor.

The Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act (H.R.

4242)

This bill would create dangerous exemptions to the

definition of ``firearm'' under the National Firearms Act

(NFA). The National Firearms Act covers certain firearms and

accessories determined by Congress almost a century ago to be

particularly dangerous. In turn, Congress imposed strict

regulations on the manufacture and sale of these weapons and

accessories, requiring approval from ATF after a background

check, the submission of fingerprints and a photograph,

registration of the weapon, as well as a tax stamp. The

weapons covered by the NFA are very limited in scope,

including machine guns, destructive devices such as grenade

launchers and large-bore rifles and shotguns (greater than

.50 caliber), and firearms that fall under the category of

``any other weapon'' such as firearms incorporated into other

common objects or disguised to be undetectable as firearms,

i.e., umbrella or flashlight guns.

This bill would remove NFA registration requirements and

deregulate the private transfer of certain devices that would

otherwise be classified as firearms under the NFA. This

includes destructive devices, including devices that would

otherwise be classified as grenade launchers, large-bore

(greater than .50 caliber) weapons, kinetic impact devices,

and immobility devices classified as ``any other weapon,''

including bola devices, so long as they fell under the

definition of a ``less than lethal projectile device''--a

definition which is both alarmingly easy to satisfy and of

which certain elements can be waived at the discretion of the

Secretary of the Treasury. While law enforcement agencies

have access to such devices, these bills would establish

broad unregulated civilian access, even for those with

prohibiting criminal convictions.

Automated and Undetectable Weapons Systems

While both H.R. 2189/S. 1283 and H.R. 4242 present their

own independent public safety concerns; in tandem, there are

effectively very few limits to what kinds of ``less-than-

lethal'' weapon systems the gun industry may develop after

their enactment--which could be sold directly to the public

without regulation.

Alarmingly, as these devices would no longer qualify as

``firearms'' under any federal statute, they would no longer

be subject to the Undetectable Firearms Act (UFA), recently

reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan and law enforcement

support, paving the way for the incorporation of firearm

technology into ``less-than-lethal'' area denial devices,

robotics, and even armed drones. While some of these weapon

systems already exist--such as the TASER Shockwave,

effectively a TASER claymore that can shoot dozens, or even

hundreds, of projectiles at the same time for crowd control--

they rely on compressed gas, making them large and cumbersome

to deploy. The incorporation of explosive propellant would

create opportunities to miniaturize these systems and deploy

them using automated or remote systems.

Finally, these bills would completely undermine the UFA,

making it legal to incorporate firearm technology into

devices that are specifIcally designed to evade all standard

security measures, such as metal detectors and X-ray

machines, all available for unregulated civilian use.

Conclusion

Deregulating these ``less-than-lethal'' devices will put

lives at risk, especially the most vulnerable in society.

Because these devices would no longer fall under the legal

definition of ``firearm,'' they would be available to all

members of the public without a background check and without

a prohibition on modification. Even with those safeguards,

these bills could open a brand new market for dangerous

weapons that are obtainable by anyone, including prohibited

persons. Despite the stated intent, these bills are not

designed to benefit law enforcement and will instead place

them at risk as they encounter these weapons more frequently

on the streets. As such, we oppose H.R. 2189/S. 1283 and H.R.

4242 and urge members of Congress not to support them.

Sincerely,

Brady.

Community Justice Action Fund.

Everytown for Gun Safety.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats will continue to support law enforcement innovation and the adoption of tools that keep everyone safer, but we must oppose this misguided legislation that does not promote innovation or de-escalation and will only put our law enforcement, those experiencing domestic abuse, and others in danger.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we continue our celebration of Black History Month, I rise to recognize a Georgia trailblazer, Elana Meyers Taylor, a member of Team USA Bobsled. Elana is a mother of two and the only athlete from Georgia competing at the 2026 Olympic Winter Games in Milan.

Born and raised in Douglasville, Georgia, Elana attended George Washington University on a softball scholarship. She began bobsledding in 2007 and is competing in her fifth Olympic Games for Team USA. She has won five medals, making her the most decorated Black Winter Olympian in history.

Elana has won nine World Championship medals and four USA Bobsled and Skeleton Women's Athlete of the Year awards. She has also served as the president of the Women's Sports Foundation, giving a voice to women around the globe.

Elana's community is so proud of how she represents us on the world stage. On behalf of Georgia's Sixth Congressional District and the United States House of Representatives, we wish Elana all the best at the Olympics in Milan.

Many Changes Since Founding of CBC

Mr. Speaker, during Black History Month, a time of celebration and honoring of our ancestors, we cannot ignore the challenges we face as a nation.

As the daughter of civil rights trailblazers, I take pride in serving as a leader within the Congressional Black Caucus. I know we must move forward with faith that our Nation's best days remain in front of us, if we continue to lead by example.

I may have been just a child when the Congressional Black Caucus was formed, but its very founding embodied the spirit of what our dear friend, John Lewis, called ``good trouble.''

Following President Nixon's refusal to meet with the 13 founding members of the Congressional Black Caucus, our founders made national headlines when they decided to boycott his 1971 State of the Union Address. Their efforts secured an audience with the President, where they went on to present 61 policy recommendations. They sought this meeting ``out of a deep conviction that large numbers of citizens are being subjected to intense hardship, are denied their basic rights, and are suffering irreparable harm as a result of current policies.''

It is striking to me to read these words because, out of context, one might believe that these are words to describe the way so many of the American people feel about this moment, about this Congress, about this President.

It is true that America has made remarkable progress since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but I wonder who among the original 13 members of the Congressional Black Caucus would have dared to imagine that less than 40 years after their founding that one of the CBC's members would be elected to the highest office in the land.

Yes, the world has changed for Black people in America. Despite our gains, we are still grappling with a backlash to that progress. We see it in obvious ways, like the hate and racism that spreads through social media posts. However, even more concerning is the way in which Federal policies exacerbate years of discriminatory practices against communities of color.

We see it in housing discrimination, healthcare disparities, and wage gaps. We see it when the extraordinary service of the Tuskegee Airmen is scrubbed from the Department of Defense websites in an effort to erase their service to our Nation. We also see it when the very teachings of Black history in our Smithsonian Institution are threatened by executive order.

Just as the Congressional Black Caucus of 1971 did, the Congressional Black Caucus of 2026 refuses to stand by in the face of these efforts to undermine the impact and the importance of Black men and women, and we stand against extremists that would rather erase our history than address our needs.

President Barack Obama said it best: ``On the challenges of our times . . . on the threats of our time . . . members of the CBC have been leaders moving America forward.''

Yes, we have. Yes, we will continue to do so.

Mr. Speaker, this week began Black History Month. As Second Vice Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am proud to raise and put proper emphasis on this important annual recognition. All month long, I will be working to amplify the stories of notable Black Americans from Georgia's 6th Congressional District. Today, I am particularly honored to kick off my constituent recognitions by sharing the story of a truly exceptional American.

Dr. Hillard Pouncy, Jr. was a student, a research scientist, and a beloved father and grandfather. But perhaps most notably, he was one of the original Tuskegee Airmen during World War II. Dr. Pouncy's accomplishments in life seem almost too extraordinary to be true. Born in Prichard, Alabama, Hillard lived with his grandparents to support them for many years of his childhood--a glimpse of what life was like before the advent of Social Security.

In segregated Alabama, he navigated the obstacles required to receive an education. Hillard had to travel to a neighboring county to complete his high school education. This did not phase Hillard--he finished as the valedictorian of his class.

After high school, he went to Tuskegee in search of work and the furtherance of his education. After seeing Black cadets march on campus and watching them fly airplanes, Hillard said he ``just knew'' he would become a Tuskegee Airman--he loved the look of their uniforms and the promise of what kind of doors could be unlocked as a Tuskegee Airman. Through advanced training, bombardier school, and navigation training, Hillard witnessed--and experienced firsthand--the obstacles and the challenges that men of color faced, even as some of the most highly skilled members of our Nation's armed forces. Again, this did not phase him. He trained as a bombardier with the 477th Bombardment Group and was part of the remarkable history of the Tuskegee Airmen.

Following his military service, Dr. Pouncy earned advanced degrees in chemistry, obtaining a Ph.D. in organic chemistry. He enjoyed a long and distinguished career as a research scientist with Union Carbide, which took him all over the world. In retirement, Dr. Pouncy and his late wife Mrs. Mattie retired to Austell, right in the heart of Georgia's 6th District. As a beloved resident at Presbyterian Village, he always took time to give back to his fellow residents and school children in our community. Dr. Pouncy passed away just before Christmas at the age of 103. At his memorial service, I was struck by the stories I heard of what a devoted public servant he remained long after he retired. Dr. Hillard Pouncy truly represented the very best of us.

Our Nation has come a long way since the days of Jim Crow, and I marvel at the progress of our American life seen through the eyes of a man like Hillard Pouncy. In 2014, Dr. Pouncy sat for an interview about his life. As he reflected on his pride, watching his grandson graduate from one of the finest schools in the country, he chuckled and said, ``Things are different now, for the better.''

Thanks to the courageous service of Dr. Pouncy and his fellow Tuskegee Airmen, and Civil Rights Movement leaders like Dr. King and John Lewis, yes, things are different now, for the better. And though we face a great many challenges at this moment of our American story, we owe a debt of gratitude to a man like Dr. Hillard Pouncy. As we prepare to mark what would have been Dr. Pouncy's 104th birthday on February 8, 2026, I rejoice that such a wonderful man was able to walk this earth for over a century. All Black History Month long and beyond, I will continue to do all that I can to uplift the name of Dr. Pouncy and every man and woman who has made such significant contributions to the advancement of this great Nation. We are truly better off because they were here among us.

Mr. Speaker, this week began Black History Month. As second vice chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I am proud to rise and put proper emphasis on this important annual recognition. All month long, I will be working to amplify the stories of notable Black Americans from Georgia's Sixth Congressional District.

Today, I am particularly honored to kick off my constituent recognition by sharing the story of a truly exceptional American. Dr. Hillard Pouncy, Jr., was a student, research scientist, and beloved father and grandfather. Perhaps most notably, he was one of the original Tuskegee Airmen during World War II.

Dr. Pouncy's accomplishments in life seem almost too extraordinary to be true. Born in Prichard, Alabama, Hillard lived with his grandparents to

support them for many years of his childhood, a glimpse of what life was like before the advent of Social Security.

In segregated Alabama, he navigated the obstacles required to receive an education. Hillard had to travel to a neighboring county in order to complete his high school education. This didn't faze Hillard. He finished as the valedictorian of his class.

After high school, he went to Tuskegee in search of work and the furtherance of his education. After seeing Black cadets march on campus and watching them fly airplanes, Hillard said that he just knew he would become a Tuskegee Airman. He loved the look of their uniforms and the promise of what kind of doors could be unlocked as a Tuskegee Airman.

Through advanced training, bombardier school, and navigation training, Hillard witnessed and experienced firsthand the obstacles and challenges that men of color faced, even as some of the most highly skilled members of our Nation's Armed Forces. Again, this did not faze him. He trained as a bombardier with the 477th Bombardment Group and was part of the remarkable history of the Tuskegee Airmen.

Following his military service, Dr. Pouncy earned advanced degrees in chemistry, obtaining a Ph.D. in organic chemistry. He enjoyed a long and distinguished career as a research scientist with Union Carbide, which took him all over the world.

In retirement, Dr. Pouncy and his late wife, Mrs. Mattie, retired to Austell, right in the heart of Georgia's Sixth Congressional District. As a beloved resident at Presbyterian Village, he always took time to give back to his fellow residents and schoolchildren in our community.

Dr. Pouncy passed away just before Christmas at the ripe age of 103. At his memorial service, I was struck by the stories that I heard of what a devoted public servant he remained long after he retired. Dr. Hillard Pouncy truly represented the very best of us.

Our Nation has come a very long way since the days of Jim Crow, and I marvel at the progress of our American life seen through the eyes of a truly original American citizen, a man like Hillard Pouncy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Bobby Scott, for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, like so many women across the country, I struggled for so many years to get pregnant. My husband and I tried everything that we could do to start a family of our own. Being a mom for me was what I always wanted to do. I wanted to be the best mom that I could be.

When we finally succeeded, I remember that I had never really been so happy. All the prayers I prayed to God, I finally felt like my prayers were answered. The moment I prayed for, for years, was happening. I wanted to tell everyone that I was going to be a mom, but one day I woke up covered in blood.

It is hard to describe the agony of a miscarriage. It is hard to describe the heartbreak and the utter helplessness. You fall directly into pain and despair.

After my second miscarriage, I wondered if God ever had plans for me to be a mom. When I got pregnant a third time, I was completely overjoyed. At 4 months, I was rushed to the hospital where I learned I had suffered a fetal demise. That means a stillborn.

My doctors thought it would be safer to end the pregnancy naturally. For 2 weeks, I carried my stillborn child within my womb, within my belly. For 2 weeks, I carried that lost pregnancy.

For 2 weeks, I carried my dead fetus as they waited for me to go into labor. I never ended up going into labor on my own. When the doctors finally induced me, I faced the pain of childbirth without the hope for a living child.

This story is uniquely mine, but it is not just my story. Millions of women in our country--women in this room, women all throughout America, women that people here actually know and love--have suffered a miscarriage or stillbirth.

Congress should be making sure that women are aware of all of their rights, not just cherry-picking the ones that we want to highlight over others to make a point about abortion.

Mr. Speaker, for the women in your life whose stories you don't even know, for the women across the country whose lives you may not even understand--the choices and the environments that they live in--and for the women in America who have gone through things some people can never even imagine, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misguided bill.

It is not that we are not trying to empower women who are making choices during their pregnancy. That is not it at all. Let's make sure that they are empowered with every tool, every resource, and every bit of information they deserve to make the choices they need to make about their lives, their bodies, and their pregnancies.

This body should not determine what decisions they make for themselves. We talk about God. God gives us choice. God gives us choice to make the decisions that we believe are best for ourselves. We have no right to take those choices away from them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask every colleague on the other side of the aisle--I have been there. I have had to make choices. Let's do the right thing and make sure that every woman has the full breadth of the ability to make the choices that she needs to make.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Terri Denison as she retires from an outstanding career as Georgia district director of the Small Business Administration.

Since 2002, Terri has been a steadfast advocate for small businesses and entrepreneurs, ensuring that they have the resources and guidance needed to grow and succeed.

Terri's leadership was especially vital during times of economic uncertainty. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, she was instrumental in helping Georgia's small businesses navigate unprecedented challenges. Terri worked tirelessly to connect businessowners with relief programs, which provided stability and hope in the midst of crisis.

I offer my deepest gratitude to Terri for her devotion to Georgia's entrepreneurial community, and I celebrate her

extraordinary accomplishments in service to this country. Through the years, she has always been willing to serve the people of Georgia, and I have enjoyed working with her through many events for small business stakeholders in my district.

On behalf of my office, Georgia's Sixth Congressional District, and the United States House of Representatives, I congratulate and offer best wishes to Terri on her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6719, the Combating Online Predators Act.

There are a number of teenagers and pre-teens who have lost their lives to suicide because of sextortion. We are fighting against criminal individuals and groups who seek out our children with no goal other than to cause turmoil. Sextortion is a dangerous and sick activity that has been increasingly used against children--so much so that the FBI has released warnings on the growing risk this poses to our kids, and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) has reported a nearly 200 percent increase in attempts. As our social landscape continues to evolve, placing our most vulnerable population online more often, we must be prepared with the laws to deter and punish bad actors.

These perpetrators have taken Al-generated images of their victims or convinced the teens to send nude images of themselves and used them as leverage for outrageous demands. Some perpetrators will demand thousands of dollars--a request that is near impossible for the vast majority of teens.

Teenagers worry about so many things: what they are going to wear for homecoming, why their acne cannot seem to get under control, whether they should go to college or trade school. They should not be worried about someone catfishing them and using intimate images of them to either coerce money from them or push them to self-harm.

From Michigan, to Kentucky, to Ohio, and Georgia, these schemes range across the country. These sextortion operations are expanding, and we must do what we can to help law enforcement and prosecutors bring these evils to justice.

With this bill, we will provide prosecutors with additional tools to hold perpetrators accountable for schemes in which they seek to obtain explicit photos and videos of minors.

Our teenagers are in need of protection regardless of their independence and maturity. I am proud to support this legislation to ensure our teenagers can spend this pivotal moment in their lives focusing on things that will positively shape them into adulthood. They should have the chance to enjoy their teenage years without threat or malice.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6719, the Combating Online Predators Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to fight for some of the most overworked and underpaid people in our country to ensure that the money that they work so hard for goes to them and their families, not to someone who didn't work for it.

The true purpose of this bill is not to protect tipped employees. The true purpose is to make it easier to pay people less for their work and to pay them less than $7.25 an hour.

This bill allows employers to classify anyone who may receive a seasonal or random tip as a tipped employee, meaning they can now be paid below minimum wage by their employer. Those tips should be in addition to a worker's wage.

Employers should not be able to pay their workers less because that worker happened to receive a Christmas bonus or an occasional tip from a customer, but that is exactly what this bill would do.

This bill flies directly in the face of President Trump's campaign promise to help tipped workers. What good is no tax on tips if you have to give those tips directly to your boss so that they can take it out of your base pay?

When someone pays taxes, they at least get something in return. Like many Americans, I do not think that the average person sees the benefit that they really should for what they pay in taxes. That is because the Republican majority chooses to spend the American people's money on tax breaks for billionaires instead of spending it on our kids, and instead of spending it on childcare, housing, healthcare, on things that really make people's lives far more affordable.

What is the worker getting in return in this situation? It is just the opportunity to work. I think the American people agree that their employers should be paying them to work and not the other way around.

No worker in this country should be paid this low. I don't care who they are. Many States have raised their minimum wages. Unfortunately, my State of Georgia has not. Without the Federal floor of $7.25, workers in Georgia could legally be paid just over $5 an hour because our State minimum wage is just $5.15. Who can live on that?

Instead of trying to find ways to pay people as little as possible, this body, Congress, should be raising the wages and helping Americans keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their pocket, the money that they worked so hard for.

Mr. Speaker, before I came to this body, I was a flight attendant for a national air carrier. The money that I am making today is far more than I ever made as a contract employee for an airline.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that during the hard, 16-hour days that I had, much like what I have here, we weren't allowed to receive any tips. We weren't allowed to receive any of those kinds of benefits. Basically, if we did, if someone really, really pushed a tip on us, we would spread it among our crew. It was the right thing to do because in the airline industry, there is a cap on what you can make. There is a cap on your salary.

Mr. Speaker, having been a contract employee and having done all of that before I came here, I am so grateful every time I come across an individual in the customer service industry who has really done a good job. Paying them tips is the least that we can do to make sure that they are honored for their service.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) so much for this piece of legislation. I thank her for all the really good hard work that she has done in rallying the troops to do the right thing. I thank her very much for taking care of our victims and making sure they have these provisions. I, too, have been a victim, so I thank her personally.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 909, the Crime Victims Fund Stabilization Act of 2025.

Established by the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 to provide funding for State victim compensation and assistance programs, the Crime Victims Fund does not rely on taxpayer dollars. Instead, it is funded by fines, monetary penalties, and assessments paid by convicted Federal defendants, as well as forfeited bail bonds and other gifts and donations.

For four decades, the Crime Victims Fund has been a lifeline, providing money through grants to States, local governments, individuals, and other entities. It supports rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, child advocacy programs, and services for survivors like me of homicide, assault, and human trafficking in every State and in every territory. It pays for counseling, emergency shelters, legal aid, and lost wages.

In short, the Crime Victims Fund is the bedrock of our Nation's promise to help victims rebuild their lives, serving nearly 4 million victims of crime every year. That is a staggering number, so I want to say it again: 4 million victims of crime every year.

Over the last decade, the fund has faced a severe and sustained crisis. Stemming from changes in prosecution practices, revenues have plummeted. Meanwhile, the needs of victims have only grown.

In recent years, we have witnessed the emergence of a devastating cycle. Annual distributions to States for victim services and assistance have been cut by 40 percent, forcing programs to close their doors, lay off their staff, and turn victims away in their greatest and most desperate hours of need.

H.R. 909 is a necessary and responsible solution that is not just fiscally sound but profoundly just. This bill would address the fluctuations in deposits that continue to threaten the fund and our ability to provide vital support to victims of crime.

It would provide critical stabilization of the fund by authorizing an infusion of unobligated funds collected through the False Claims Act to halt the immediate bleeding. This stopgap measure will prevent further catastrophic cuts to victim services, ensuring that hotlines remain open and advocates remain at their posts while we implement and continue to work on a long-term fix.

It includes essential oversight and accountability measures. By requiring regular reporting that includes an audit, we can guarantee transparency in how these funds are being managed and distributed, and we can be sure that the money reaches frontline organizations that are doing the hard work on the ground. This is lifesaving work that they are doing, with efficiency and integrity.

Speaking as a beneficiary of the good works done as a result of the existence of the Crime Victims Fund and a proud cosponsor of H.R. 909, there is truly an urgent need to pass this legislation. Without Federal funding, critical victim services are simply going to vanish.

I am grateful to the sponsors of this bill and to all of our colleagues for their bipartisanship in doing what is right to help our victims and for their efforts.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the Crime Victims Fund Stabilization Act, and, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that neither saving lives nor providing support to victims of crime are partisan issues. Victimization knows no political party.

The instability of the Crime Victims Fund threatens red states as well as blue states alike, urban centers and also rural communities equally. Passage of the Crime Victims Fund Stabilization Act is a declaration of our own common values.

This bill says that our commitment to this Nation's victims is not just a line in a budget subject to prosecutorial trends.

I would like to say when my family and I spent the 2\1/2\ years in court that we did in Jacksonville, Florida, when my son was murdered in November of 2012, the Crime Victims Fund of Florida helped to support the representative and to provide the representative who spent day after day with us making sure that we had the resources and the means that we needed, making sure that we understood that the State of Florida was standing there to support us in spite of the terrible tragedy that we had suffered. That money, those funds, were allocated from the Crime Victims Fund.

So, once again, having actually lived through this experience, I know how important it is to make sure that we pass this legislation.

It says that our first thought is to bind the wounds of the injured, the helpless, and the innocent.

We owe it to the survivors who need counseling and stable housing to help them sleep through the night again. We owe it to the parents who must bury their child or their children or their loved one, such as I have. We owe it to the countless silent sufferers who have yet to come forward but who must know that help will be there when they need it.

This is a commonsense solution that will ensure victims have access to the services that they need to heal, to reclaim their lives again, and to feel secure enough to speak out about their pursuing the justice that they deserve.

I ask all Members of this body to support this lifesaving bill. I hope that the Senate will take it up and pass it as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Raskin for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6715, the Child Predators Accountability Act of 2025.

The safety of our children is foundational to a secure and just society. Yet this foundation is broken every time a child is victimized.

Due to narrow interpretations, prosecutors have sometimes been required to prove that a child was visibly, actively participating in sexual conduct in order to bring charges, but exploitation doesn't always look the same. A child does not have to be visibly active for harm to be real, lasting, and devastating.

Tell me, what would it mean for the child victims if we required more?

The properly named Child Predators Accountability Act makes an important and very necessary clarification for a circuit split that could allow predators to evade justice. By making it uniformly illegal to depict a minor in sexually explicit material, regardless of whether that child appears to be actively participating, this change strengthens the law so that predators can no longer hide behind technical loopholes while continuing to exploit our children, making sure that anyone who dares to prey on the most vulnerable will face consequences for their crimes. This legislation would clarify Federal standards nationwide and restore consistency in how these horrific offenses are prosecuted, ensuring that justice does not depend solely on geography or jurisdiction.

The protection of our children from monstrous crimes transcends political television. I call on each and every one of my colleagues to pass this legislation and send a very clear and strong message that the exploitation of children will be met with the full, unyielding, inescapable force of justice. This bill empowers law enforcement and prosecutors by giving them unified and stronger tools to pursue cases and dismantle these exploitation efforts.

Mr. Speaker, when the law is clear, justice can move more swiftly and more effectively, allowing

victims to begin the long process of healing with the knowledge that their government is standing with them and for them.

This legislation is about protecting the most vulnerable among us.

The time for action is now. I support the Child Predators Accountability Act, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for yielding.

I rise today in support of H.R. 6732, the Coercion and Sexual Abuse Free Environment Act, or, as we all call it, the CSAFE Act.

As technology has become more sophisticated, online threats against children have become more complicated, malicious, and sometimes deadly.

The harm has moved beyond just simple bullying. Today, groups of people online, like the so-called 764 network, seek out and coerce vulnerable kids to photograph, record, or live stream acts of violence or self-harm to the world.

Take, for example, a horrific case that happened just last summer on the online platform Roblox. Several people associated with 764 located in Tennessee allegedly used the platform to entice a 13-year-old, located hundreds of miles away in New Jersey, to carve the initials of each person into her leg and send the group pictures and videos of her self-inflicted wounds.

According to the criminal complaint, the content was shared with the leader of the 764 group, or the so-called boss, so that the perpetrators could become full-fledged members of the group.

Mind you, Roblox is a massive online platform that actually allows users to design, create, and play millions of different games. With roughly half of its user base being under the age of 13, the platform is used by nearly 90 million children every day and has repeatedly been found to be at the top of its class in safety features.

Just imagine the potential harm that could be inflicted on our children on platforms and websites that have subpar safety features.

Let's be clear. State and Federal prosecutors have brought charges in these types of cases. For example, on November 20, 2025, the Department of Justice announced that a grand jury returned an indictment charging a 20-year-old man in Maryland, who identifies himself as a member of the 764 group, with three counts of sexual exploitation of a child, three counts of

coercion and enticement of a child, and one count of cyberstalking.

Still, there is no law that specifically prohibits the coercion of children to inflict harm on themselves or others, which sometimes makes it hard for prosecutors to pursue these charges.

The CSAFE Act is meant to fill in the gaps in our Federal law by creating a new crime that prohibits individuals from compelling, attempting to compel, or conspiring to compel children into physically harming themselves, others, or animals.

While the original bill considered by the Judiciary Committee raised several constitutional concerns, I am pleased to see that this bill before us today includes several improvements that address the concerns that we raised during our bill markup.

As the internet and online platforms continue to evolve and create new challenges that we have to deal with every single day, it is our job as policymakers to be responsive to those challenges, ensuring that these seemingly benign tools are not used for nefarious purposes. We must also make sure that our criminal justice system is capable of holding to account those who dare to exploit these platforms and these tools and prey on our children and cause harm to others.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues in this body to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank both of our leaders this evening, Representative Hoyer and Representative Clyburn, for making sure that we never forget.

Mr. Speaker, today we pause on the 5-year anniversary of one of the darkest days of our democracy. On January 6, rioters stormed the heart of American Government and sought to overthrow the will of the people with bats and clubs. Now, the individual responsible for promoting such baseless allegations once again occupies the highest office in the land.

I extend profound gratitude for the Capitol Police who stood on the front lines on that terrible day. I thank my colleagues, our appointed officials, and every congressional staff member who worked to ensure that the true will of the American people was done.

I urge every citizen that is watching today to remember that the eyes of the world have not looked away in the 5 years since. We must work to ensure that the American ideals of freedom, justice and liberty endure for generations to come. Never, ever forget.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, today, we are here considering a bill that is named the PROTECT Our Kids Act. I am going to speak and shift this conversation a little bit in the direction I think we really need to go.

This bill, the PROTECT Our Kids Act, does absolutely nothing to protect our kids. Just 5 days after three children and a 21-year-old were shot and killed in a mass shooting at a birthday party in Stockton, California, is a level of tone-deafness that I don't think I have seen during my 7 years here in Washington.

There are four families burying their children this week. There are four families burying their kids just like I had to when my son, Jordan, was murdered simply for playing loud music in his car.

Mr. Speaker, 8-year-old Journey Rose, 8-year-old Maya Lupian, and 14- year-old Amari Peterson will never get the experience that they deserve or the promise that this country offers. They will never get that chance--all because they went to a birthday party--and this Congress refuses to do anything about it time and time again. I don't know how many times I have to stand here on this floor to debate and talk about the number of children and people who are dying in this country.

We call this bill the PROTECT Our Kids Act? It does absolutely nothing. My Republican colleagues are deflecting over and over again against the real crimes against our children. Today, they want to bring to this floor a bill that will do absolutely nothing to protect our children.

The real way to protect kids is to keep them safe from unnecessary gun violence. That is what we should be doing at this time, but my Republican colleagues refuse to say anything about protecting children from unnecessary gun violence.

Over and over again, I cannot say how many times--I meet families every single day. I get alerts from my staff every single day of every mass murder and every tragedy in this country. It is overwhelming.

Excuse me, but if we are going to sit here and talk about protecting our kids, if my colleagues are really willing to do that, then they should bring up gun violence prevention legislation. They should bring up policy that really does the very thing that they are pretending to do through this bill: Protect our children.

There is no greater threat to our kids in school, at church, at their birthday parties, or at any other private or public space across this country than gun violence.

We took a very important step with the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. We did really good work, not just for Democratic children but for Republican children, as well, but we must do more to keep our children safe.

Shootings are the leading cause of death for children and teenagers in this country. Yes, my Republican colleagues have children and families who are dying by gun violence every single day, just like us here in the Democratic Party. We would never know that from this bill or when we are listening to our Republican colleagues.

For people like me, for people who have buried their son or their loved one, their daughter, their big sister, or their little brother before their time, we really know what is at stake. We cannot continue to play this game over and over again, fooling the American people by telling them that we are protecting their interests, protecting their families, and protecting their children with pieces of legislation like this that do absolutely nothing to protect our children.

Mr. Speaker, we know this cannot wait. I am just so sick and tired of the tone deafness. Every time we come to the floor, my Republican colleagues want to put forward a piece of legislation that fools the American people into believing that we are really working on their interests and on their behalf, when it really does not do that at all.

We know that the longer we do nothing, the more likely it is for someone else to have their family torn apart like I have or for someone else to attend a wake or a funeral instead of a wedding or a graduation ceremony. It doesn't have to be this way.

Mr. Speaker, I just--if we want to say it this way--celebrated the 12th anniversary of my son's murder. If my colleagues want to talk about protecting our kids, let's really do that and not this facade.

Mr. Speaker, unlike Columbine, Newtown, Las Vegas, Uvalde, Lewiston, and Stockton, your home does not have to be next.

Trust me, my colleagues. Every single one of us in this body has people dying every single day in our constituencies. We should use this time to really protect our kids and not just act like we are protecting them, while this Republican Congress does nothing about these tragedies at all.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The Trafficking Survivors Relief Act is very critical, bipartisan legislation that would provide long-overdue relief to victims and survivors of human trafficking to help them overcome the lasting effects of being trafficked and allow them a chance to heal.

It recognizes their unique traumas, the immense challenges that they face after escaping their exploitation, and their right to rebuild their lives with some dignity and some respect.

Victims of trafficking are demeaned. They are dehumanized and coerced by their traffickers, who do not see them as people but see them as objects only to be bought, sold, and abused; but we see them, and we must give them the help that they need and they deserve.

Too often, they emerge with criminal records directly tied to their exploitation. These records follow them along their path long after they are free, preventing them from finding a job, securing safe housing, pursuing education, or even getting treatment for the trauma that they have escaped.

The barriers they face as a result of their records often serve as painful reminders of the abuse that they endured and can make survivors vulnerable to even further exploitation.

Many States, including my State of Georgia, have already passed laws like the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act. It is past time that we take similar steps to do this on the Federal level. By allowing survivors to expunge arrests or vacate nonviolent convictions connected to their trafficking, we give them a chance to reclaim their futures and move forward without the weight of their past being used against them.

Just as we must allow them the ability to shed the lasting remnants of their victimization, we must also provide them with resources and services that they desperately need. Survivors need strong and consistent Federal support to stay safe and move forward.

Mr. Speaker, we must ensure our government continues to invest in prevention services and enforcement that keeps survivors protected. Any cuts or weakened efforts will risk putting them back in harm's way or back in the streets, and we cannot allow that to happen.

This bill is about justice, healing, and true restoration. It affirms that survivors are more than the crimes that they are forced to commit. They are human beings deserving of opportunity, safety, and hope.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support putting survivors first and support this bipartisan legislation. I thank Representatives Fry and Johnson for championing this effort. I look forward to working together to ensure that survivors are seen, supported, and given every chance that they can to thrive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Roy for working with me. This is a true representation of good government and what it looks like for bipartisanship, and I hope we are able to do more of this going forward.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the sake of an effective criminal justice system. The laws within our criminal code, as has been expressed before, have become outdated and a highway to overcriminalization. We have so many unlawful acts within our criminal code that we don't even know how many criminal laws there are.

That is why we need to pass the Count the Crimes to Cut Act of 2025,

which would mandate the creation of a comprehensive inventory, as we have expressed, of all Federal criminal, statutory, and regulatory offenses.

I am really proud to co-lead this commonsense and, as I said before, bipartisan solution that will help us address the pressing issue of overcriminalization, a troubling result of unchecked growth of our Federal criminal law.

For too long, new Federal crimes have been created without a full understanding of what criminal laws already exist. Six years ago, policy organizations estimated that we have over 5,000 Federal crimes, many of which, as we have stated before, are redundant, overly broad, or better left to the States, or are so obscure that the public has no practical way of knowing that they even exist. In some cases, these laws are so vague that even a reasonable person would struggle to understand what conduct is prohibited.

This massive and unorganized body of Federal criminal law puts well- intentioned, law-abiding citizens definitely at risk. Legal scholars suggest that everyday Americans may unknowingly violate multiple Federal crimes without ever being made aware of it. Yet, we cannot meaningfully address the consequences of this bloated system until we fully understand the scope of the problem.

Over the last few decades, the number of Federal criminal offenses has dramatically increased to more than 5,000, and that figure doesn't even account for the countless additional crimes created by Federal regulations. Despite several previous attempts to determine the number of criminal offenses that are currently on the books, the fact is, we still don't know.

The Count the Crimes to Cut Act, which I am very proud to cosponsor, is a necessary first step toward comprehensive, data-driven reform that truly works.

By finally establishing a complete inventory of these offenses, we can effectively evaluate how they are enforced, understand the intent requirements associated with each one of these laws, and determine where reforms to mens rea standards are necessary. We will also be able to identify redundant or outdated laws that serve no public safety purpose at all.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this very reasonable bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), our constitutional scholar and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

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

Mr. Speaker, we cannot have effective reform of Federal criminal laws without first passing and implementing the Count the Crimes to Cut Act. This bill is not about simply making lists. It is about creating the tools that we need for precise data-driven reform.

With concrete data, we can determine exactly which reforms are needed, remove speculation from the process, and avoid unintentional, unnecessary mistakes that could arise from a sweeping one-size-fits-all approach.

Might I say, in the era that we are in right now, there seems to be a lot of mistrust within our communities with law enforcement. We need to be building those relationships, building community, and I think this piece of legislation helps to really expedite that kind of community- driven policing and helps to make sure that people feel safe and secure in their communities.

I thank Congressman Roy for his leadership on this legislation, which will help eliminate duplicative laws and allow us to better serve and focus on the true threats to public safety, which are always a top priority of mine.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this long overdue piece of legislation. It is a bipartisan measure that really puts common sense and accountability first. I thank my colleagues for their support on this piece of legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.