Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to co-lead this legislation with Representative Lisa McClain, and I rise, of course, in strong support of this bill.

As has been said, we know that a penny costs taxpayers 3.7 cents to produce, so it makes zero sense to spend almost 4 cents creating only 1 cent.

This bill is common sense. It has bipartisan support, and it saves taxpayers money and reduces waste.

In 2023 alone, the Mint lost approximately $180 million making pennies. The reality is that the penny now is just out of date.

As the cost of living increases for many, with folks tapping technology

on their phones or cards to pay their bills, we should not be pouring millions and millions of taxpayer dollars into a coin that is now rarely used.

This is not a partisan idea. As has been said, countries from all across the world--Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and others--have stopped using and producing low-value coins without any issues or problems for the population.

This bill provides clarity by giving businesses the option, not the requirement, to round cash transactions to the nearest nickel when exact change isn't available.

It also ensures that existing pennies, more than 114 billion of them, will also remain legal tender. Folks can keep those pennies if they have them at home.

Now, the government should stop spending nearly 4 cents to make 1 cent coins.

The Common Cents Act eliminates a wasteful, obsolete coin while protecting pennies as legal tender. Let's stop throwing good money after the bad and pass the Common Cents Act.

Mr. Speaker, I hereby remove my name as cosponsor of H.R. 2555.

Mr. Speaker, on May 12, 2026, Oversight Committee Democrats convened the first-ever hearing to solicit testimony from survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's crimes. The hearing, ``Survivors Fight for Justice: Exposing Epstein's Crimes in Palm Beach and Across the World,'' marked a critical step forward in the fight for justice and accountability.

On behalf of all the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's crimes, I rise to include in the Record the testimony offered by Ms. Maria Farmer:

My name is Maria Farmer. I am the whistleblower who

reported Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Les Wexner, and

others to the FBI 30 years ago in 1996.

Today I apologize for my appearance. I was not well enough

to attend this hearing in person and have recently been

released from the hospital. That's the result of thirty years

of fighting. For three decades, I have carried a weight that

no survivor should ever have to bear. I reported what I

believed were heinous crimes against children, and these

individuals responsible were involved in an international

pedophile ring. I reported their crimes in real time, and the

government continues to ignore me to this day.

In 1996, I reported Epstein and his co-conspirators to my

local New York City Sixth Precinct. The Commanding Officer

told me local police could only address the local arson

crimes, and he instructed me to immediately report the whole

story, spanning several states, to the FBI. He told me that

it was vitally important that I tell the whole story to the

FBI, which I did. The FBI asked me questions, said they were

familiar with some of the perpetrators I identified, and gave

me every reason to believe they would respond. That failure--

that single moment when law enforcement refused to take

action--set off a cascade of injustice and grave

repercussions to my sisters, my family, and so many others,

and to me personally, including my health and well-being.

The FBI's decades of failure and inaction led to countless

more girls and young women suffering abuse and trauma that

could have been prevented. Individuals like Virginia Giuffre,

Anouska de Georgiou, Chauntae Davies, Marijke Chartouni, Dani

Bensky, Jena-Lisa Jones, Ashley Rubright, and Jennifer Araoz

among others. Each survivor represents a life changed

forever, suffering that could have been spared if the FBI had

done their job in 1996.

The failures did not stop there.

In 2006, the FBI tracked me down, stating that they

searched for me because they knew I had reported Epstein ten

years earlier and no one else had. They urged me to testify

in a federal criminal trial against Epstein and his co-

conspirators, and they promised that they would ``get him''

this time. I trusted them again, relied upon them again, and

they betrayed me again. Rather than following through with

their promises, the government offered Epstein a sweetheart

deal and shielded powerful individuals from accountability,

and they persist in granting special treatment to certain

people to this day.

I have received death threats from Maxwell and her

associates--including one instance where they threatened to

burn my apartment down--and those threats have not stopped. I

have been subjected to more than three decades of ongoing

harassment, vicious challenges to my truthfulness, and real

danger from internet instigators, trolls and more. Meanwhile,

my numerous efforts to obtain my 1996 report from the FBI

have been rejected again and again.

In 2023, I wrote a letter to the government, asking for an

investigation of the government's actions or inactions in

response to my 1996 report. The Inspector General replied,

saying they were busy with other things but would get back to

me, and they never did. I sent multiple FOIA requests for my

FBI report records. In January 2025, in response to my most

recent request, the government said that they would get back

to me in November 2027, a delay of nearly three years. I

finally received a letter saying they looked at my complaint,

took some kind of action, and the matter was ``addressed,''

but what they did was a secret. With no other choice, I filed

an administrative claim against the government and then a

lawsuit. Since then, virtually nothing has happened, and I'm

left waiting and wondering what is next.

With the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act,

after years of efforts to get my records, an FD-71 form was

released for the first time, confirming part of my 1996

whistleblower report and vindicating some of what I had said

for years. However, the full extent of what I told the FBI

was not in that document, so the release of the Epstein Files

provides only partial relief for me. Where is the evidence I

provided of my sexual assault, and that of my sister Annie?

Why won't the FBI release my full report?

The failures of those sworn to protect us have overwhelmed

me. Doing my civic duty has cost me dearly. The stress of

this trauma, the government hiding and refusing to turn over

written confirmation of my 1996 report, along with the

ongoing harassment and

death threats, have contributed to me developing serious

health issues, including Hodgkin's Lymphoma, a brain tumor,

and recently Addison's disease. In the last month, I have

spent 23 nights in hospitals, including multiple nights in

the ICU. Along with my health, it has robbed me of my career.

In 1996, I was fresh out of graduate school, and living the

life that I had always dreamed, creating and selling art in

New York City. When I was assaulted, threatened and held

captive, my career was halted, and the trajectory of my life

was thrown off course.

So many others had their dreams shattered by these crimes,

and they could have been prevented. Individuals like Virginia

Giuffre, who is the backbone of this case and remains the

inspiration behind this fight. She's the reason my sister and

I came forward publicly, so we could stand together. She

faced also relentless attacks to her credibility, yet she

fought.

While Virginia may no longer be physically beside us, she

has been our shining star and guiding light and remains so

today. The rest of humanity owes it to her legacy to continue

this quest. We are still walking down the trail that Virginia

blazed for us.

So let me be direct about what we need. The federal

government owes us explanations, accountability for injuries

caused, and a promise of systemic change when crimes against

children are reported.

Accountability should start with the government's

acknowledgement and responsibility for their repeated

failures to act in response to my 1996 report. The government

needs to take responsibility for endangering and injuring

girls and young women. The government needs to start telling

the truth, face my lawsuit, and be held to account to me and

to all others who have been harmed. Had the FBI done their

job, thirty years of child sex abuse and trauma could have

been avoided. I want my full FBI file, including the 1996 and

2006 reports, including my art.

We also need the FBI and the Department of Justice to fully

investigate every lead in this case. We need investigation

and prosecution of everyone responsible, both men and women.

This includes the officials who enabled the 2008 sweetheart

deal, the other perpetrators and the many co-conspirators,

and anyone who is currently shielding powerful individuals

from justice.

No more protection for the guilty. There must be no

pardoning or commuting the sentence of Maxwell, who sexually

abused me, my minor sister, hurt so many girls and young

women, and personally threatened to kill me, has shown no

remorse, and has demonstrated no basis on which to believe

she would ever be truthful.

As the Epstein case whistleblower, I have waited three

decades for justice. It's a miracle I'm still fighting,

especially considering what the stress of three decades of

this case has done to my health and well-being. I will keep

fighting for justice and transparency, for a better, safer

future for the next generation.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I hereby remove my name as cosponsor of H.R. 1229.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Frost for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I also strongly oppose this resolution, which is yet another attack on the rights of over 700,000 D.C. residents.

This is the 10th bill that House Republicans are considering to either repeal or amend local D.C. laws. We know that D.C. has more residents than two States, pays more in Federal taxes than 26 States, and more per capita than any State as it relates to paying those taxes.

D.C.'s locally elected officials are accountable to D.C. residents, and local leaders should be empowered to address local matters without Congress interfering.

I have said this many times before, but issues like this go straight to the heart of representation. It repeals a tax law which the D.C. Council passed unanimously. The act created a child tax credit and expanded the earned income tax credit. These credits will significantly reduce child poverty in D.C.

D.C.'s act temporarily paused several provisions of Trump's larger bill from applying to D.C.'s tax code. Now, H.J. Res. 142 will deprive D.C. of $600 million in revenue over the next 4 years. This could force D.C. to cut public safety and education, and certainly impact its ability to serve the community. The threat of a budget crisis will increase borrowing costs for D.C., forcing more of the city revenue to go toward interest payments than actually helping people, as happened when Republicans cut D.C.'s local budget by about a billion dollars last year.

H.J. Res. 142 will also cause chaos in the D.C. tax filing season, which has already begun. Trump's Department of Homeland Security is doing horrific things across the country. The DOJ is defying the law to withhold the Epstein files. We are dealing with a cost-of-living crisis across the country. Instead, today, we are debating to vote to actually increase child poverty within the District of Columbia.

We strongly oppose this. Instead of actually acting like a super city council for D.C., we should be considering issues like D.C. statehood.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 142.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Honorable Gene Dodaro, the eighth Comptroller General of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office, Congress's nonpartisan investigatory arm. Mr. Dodaro's fifteen-year term as the Comptroller General ends on December 29 and his service to GAO, Congress, and our Nation has been remarkable.

Mr. Dodaro began his career at GAO more than fifty years ago. During his time as the head of GAO, Mr. Dodaro has adapted the agency to meet Congress's needs in a time of extraordinary technological change. While maintaining GAO's stringent quality assurance standards, Mr. Dodaro expanded GAO's work to examine how changes in science and technology affect our government's ability to make sure every federal dollar is spent as Congress intends.

A stalwart commitment to GAO's core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability have defined Mr. Dodaro's tenure. During his term as Comptroller General, GAO's work has led to over one trillion dollars in financial benefits.

Mr. Dodaro has testified before Congress more than 200 times. A cornerstone of his work is GAO's ``High Risk List,'' which highlights specific challenges in programs that involve substantial resources and provide critical services to the public.

GAO's real value, however, goes far beyond what any dollar amount can tell us. GAO's value derives from its ability to independently report the facts and speak truth to power.

I ask my colleagues to please join me in thanking Mr. Dodaro for his more than 50 years of service in helping us perform the Constitutional duties of the legislative branch and in wishing him well as he completes his term.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Protecting America's Workforce Act, which will restore collective bargaining rights for more than 1 million Federal workers.

I thank Congressman Golden for all his work to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor and so many Members across our caucus who are supportive.

We know this bill is a historic win which overcame opposition from Speaker Johnson and certainly antiworker allies across the government.

In March, President Trump signed an executive order terminating collective bargaining rights for Federal police officers, firefighters, nurses, food safety inspectors, and so many more.

The nurses who care for our veterans, the flight safety inspectors at the FAA, nuclear power plant safety workers, and countless others lost their right to have representation in the workplace. This is unfair, and it is wrong. Workers deserve the right to make their voices heard with a union.

Mr. Speaker, I was the mayor of my city of Long Beach, California, before I came to Congress. I am so proud to partner with our city unions, always making sure that the city and services ran effectively. Our Federal unions are the same. They make sure that our civil service is independent and nonpartisan, serving the citizens and not whichever party is currently in power.

They make sure we attract and retain highly talented workers, and they make sure our agencies follow the law.

President Trump is targeting Federal unions to further his power grab and to continue to push an agenda which leaves working families behind and, instead, supports billionaires.

Unions make our middle class stronger. They make our government stronger, and they make our economy stronger. We should be working every day to strengthen the right to organize and not to undermine it. This bill is a historic victory.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Congressman Golden and everyone who has worked on it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bresnahan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Walkinshaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, like Chairman Comer, I also agree, and I hope that the American public is watching this debate right now. Certainly, what they would see if they are watching this debate is not just Democrats advocating for passage, but Republicans advocating for passage. In fact, this is a bipartisan effort to protect Federal workers in this country.

We have heard now from multiple Republicans from the chairman's party who have actually advocated with Democrats to ensure that our President doesn't strip basic protections from our Federal workers. We are talking about our Federal nurses, our firefighters, law enforcement, medical professionals, the men and women who are working across our airports, that are taking care of our nuclear reactors in this country. They deserve the right to organize.

I do agree. I hope the American public is watching and listening to our Republican colleagues and our Democrats support our Federal workers.

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Mannion).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

Congress should be fighting hard for working people all over this country. We should be tackling the cost of living. We should be fighting to provide world-class government services, and we should be fighting for the unions which make all that possible. We should be working hard to expand the right to organize, not turning back the clock on working families. This bill is a huge win for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Golden for his work, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Mayor Bob Foster.

Bob was an incredible friend, a mentor, and a leader who gave so much to our country, our community, and my city of Long Beach.

As mayor of Long Beach for 8 years, he transformed the city into an economic powerhouse, and he led us through the 2008 financial crisis. He signed historic agreements to clean our air, to clean our water, and to clean our ports. He made our city government more efficient and responsive to residents.

Bob was also a successful businessman and CEO who brought his experience and support for working people to city hall. His vision and work led to the creation of our new civic center and downtown library. We honored that legacy when we named the new council chambers the Bob Foster Civic Chambers. It was one of the last actions we took when I was mayor of Long Beach.

His commitment to public service continued even after he left office. He and his family supported charities, nonprofits, and so many others across our city. They included mental health programs, initiatives for students and libraries, and Cal State, Long Beach.

Mr. Speaker, I first met Bob when I was a student at Cal State, Long Beach, and he served as a trustee for the California State University system. We served together again when I was elected to the city council and he was elected as mayor of Long Beach.

I was proud to support his agenda when I was on that council. When I ran for mayor, nobody did more to help my campaign than Bob. I was honored that he trusted me to be his successor for our community. His support was invaluable. I am honored that he trusted me, but most importantly, I am honored to have just known him.

His leadership is known across our community. He was a great friend and a great mentor. I enjoyed his advice, our talks, and, most importantly, his jokes. I will miss him terribly. All of our love is with his wife, Nancy, and his family.

Mr. Speaker, to his wife, Nancy, I will say that we love her so much. We support her. We thank her for all her work to our city, as well. We will continue to work and honor his incredible legacy.

Honoring Skip Keesal

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Skip Keesal.

Skip was a force, a friend, and a devoted leader in our community. He helped shape our country, our State, and the city of Long Beach. He dedicated his life to helping others and always doing the right thing. He knew everybody. Whether it was events he would have with U.S. Senators or with community members, he was as comfortable with those in power and in business as he was with community activists and the folks working across our community.

He was a giant in the legal profession, establishing one of the most admired law firms in California and one of the most powerful firms when it comes to maritime across the country.

Throughout his professional success, he maintained a deep commitment to our city and our people. He was the most respected and giving philanthropist in the city of Long Beach. Nobody did more than Skip.

He was tireless in his work for both the law firm and to countless charities and projects. The impact of his work will go on. It was a privilege to know him, to have worked alongside him, and to learn from him. I will miss our lunches, his advice, and his friendship.

Mr. Speaker, my thoughts are always with Beth, his family, and those who loved him.

Honoring Bob Maxson

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Bob Maxson.

Bob was the president of Cal State, Long Beach for 12 years, and he was also my biggest mentor in life. I am forever grateful for his friendship and guidance over the years.

More than anything, he was an incredible leader and teacher who devoted his life to the university and its students. His vision of excellence and effort to put student success front and center at CSULB turned it into the powerhouse it is today in our State.

He was the first president in the CSU system to win the Association's University President of the Year award by its own students. He won it so many times that the award was named in his honor. He coined the nickname ``The Beach,'' of which Cal State, Long Beach is now known by. He enthusiastically supported its students and athletic teams across the campus.

Mr. Speaker, I first met Bob when I served as student body president. His kindness, support, and mentorship changed the course of my life. I know for so many other people, he was a constant presence. We stayed in touch throughout my entire time in office. He supported me when I was mayor, supported me when I got to Congress, and I spoke to him just a few months before he recently passed.

I have never stopped being grateful for his service to our university, to our students, and to our community. We will always be grateful. My thoughts are with his family and the Cal State, Long Beach community.

Go Beach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the legislation which is in front of us, which is another completely unacceptable attack on the District and on democratic principles.

We know that D.C. has more residents than two States. D.C. pays more Federal taxes than 26 States. D.C.'s government is accountable to the people who live here. Local leadership should be empowered to solve problems without Congress constantly interfering.

I have said many times if Donald Trump wants to run D.C., he should resign and run for Mayor. If Republicans want to get tough on crime, they should stop protecting the criminals in the Epstein files and demand transparency from Donald Trump. Let's talk about the bill in front of us today.

We know the District of Columbia Cash Bail Reform Act is unfair and bad policy. Under this bill, if someone is charged with certain crimes, he will automatically be locked up before his trial. For other crimes, this bill would require cash bail or bond.

This will make D.C.'s local law much more strict that even Federal law. Pretrial release should be based on a judge's determination of flight risk and danger to the community. We should let trained judges and prosecutors do their jobs and consider each fact of each case.

A person shouldn't automatically be locked up based on a criminal charge before he is even proven to be guilty. We know in our system that a person is innocent until proven guilty. We know that should be true whether that person is rich or poor.

This bill will lock up more low-income people and more people who are also innocent. It will reinforce an unfair system where the rich get perks, while the poor suffer.

Democrats are fighting for a system where wealthy elites aren't above the law but where the justice system is fair for all. We are fighting for democracy.

We should let the council, the Mayor, and the District's justice system work together as they balance the public safety needs of the people. When D.C. residents don't like local policies, they can demand different policies from their elected leaders and certainly vote them out of office.

This bill is not about safety but about Congress once again interfering in local safety decisions by D.C. residents who are perfectly capable of making these decisions on their own.

We should be clear. This bill is also opposed by the Mayor, the city council, and many in the community. It is an overreach by the Republican majority to try to control the District.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is unnecessary. It undermines home rule, and it can make D.C. less safe. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Walkinshaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

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

Mr. Speaker, I, once again, urge our colleagues to oppose this bill. D.C. has a right and its residents have a right to govern themselves and elect mayors and council members that choose to pass laws to support the District. Congress should not be undermining local laws.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans want to make it easier to lock up poor defendants pretrial, undermining the fundamental American principle of innocent until proven guilty, all while stripping 700,000 residents of self-rule. Congress should not dictate local judicial policy.

Mr. Speaker, we should oppose these bills, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand tonight to strongly oppose this bill, which repeals commonsense criminal justice reforms that were passed by D.C.'s elected representatives in the wake of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement.

Mr. Speaker, we know that cities and communities all over the country passed similar reforms to increase trust, accountability, and safety. In D.C., these measures increased accountability for bad apples with independent civilian oversight, clean disciplinary process, and mandatory reporting for overuse of force incidents.

It prohibited the hiring of officers with prior misconduct, and it prohibited choke holds. They improved training for officers. The Mayor, the D.C. City Council, and the community all worked together to pass a series of reforms and laws, work they were proud of. They empower the chief of police to lead the police department and do it the right way.

This bill repeals all of that. It would damage the trust between D.C. police and the communities they protect and serve.

We know communities are safer when residents feel safe calling on 911 and when they feel safe working with the police. We know policies like de-escalation, expanding body-worn cameras, and improving safety should not move backwards.

This bill is opposed by D.C. residents. It is opposed by the Mayor of D.C. It is opposed by the D.C. City Council, and it is opposed by D.C.'s Member of Congress. This is part of my Republican colleagues' continued obsession with acting as a super city council for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, D.C., again, has more residents than two States. D.C. taxpayers pay Federal taxes. D.C., as a whole, contributes more Federal taxes than 26 other States. D.C.'s government should be allowed to govern themselves, to hold local leaders accountable, to elect their own leadership, and to solve problems without Congress consistently interfering.

We should always continue to support D.C. and their ability to govern themselves. Congress should focus on national issues and let the residents of D.C. and their local representatives govern the District.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Again, I strongly oppose this bill. As a reminder, it would eliminate commonsense criminal justice reforms that have been widely implemented by State and local governments across the country.

Local officials here in D.C. passed these laws. The voters made these decisions, and D.C. should have a right to govern itself.

This bill undermines trust between police and the community they serve and makes us all less safe.

It is undemocratic. It could very well make D.C. not just less safe but also lose trust between its elected government and the people. When the people come together and pass laws, Congress should not overturn those.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge opposition, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to hear Republicans, and certainly the chairman of our committee, finally want transparency on this issue. It is time to end this White House coverup now.

We know that Donald Trump has tried everything to kill our Jeffrey Epstein investigation. He has failed, and now he is panicking. He is about to lose this Epstein vote to force the Department of Justice to release the files.

Let's be crystal clear. Trump has the power to release the files today. He does not even need a vote. He continues to defy the subpoena of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to release all the files. What is Donald Trump hiding? What is Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, hiding? Why won't they release the Epstein files right now?

He must explain to the public why he moved sex trafficker and monster Ghislaine Maxwell to a cushy, low-security prison after her interview with Trump's personal lawyer. He should declare, and every Republican should say, that she does not deserve a pardon or commutation.

Mr. Speaker, we don't care how much money you have, what party you are in, or how powerful you are. We should get justice for the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein.

Our work on the committee is not over. Next steps are the bank and financial records to follow and expose Epstein's network.

Today, there should be a unanimous vote on releasing the files, and we will get justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the principles that bind us together as a nation. First and foremost, we must acknowledge the human cost of this horrific tragedy. A wife has lost her husband, children have lost their father, and a family has been shattered by senseless violence.

Whatever our personal political views, there should be no hesitation in extending deep sympathy to Charlie Kirk's loved ones, family, and friends.

We also stand here today to reaffirm a principle that runs deeper than politics: Political violence has no place in the United States of America.

Our democracy rests on a fragile but enduring promise: that disagreements are to be aired through speech, through debate, and through the ballot box, not through intimidation, not through violence, and not through bloodshed. That promise is enshrined in the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of assembly precisely because the Framers understood, as we all know, that a democracy cannot function without the ability to argue, to disagree, and sometimes offend each other without fear of retribution. That principle, of course, cuts both ways. We cannot claim to defend free speech if we only protect words we find comfortable or agreeable or polite.

The test of our commitment to the First Amendment is not whether we defend the speech we like. It is whether we defend the speech we dislike. Our Constitution demands that we find a way to live together in freedom even when our visions for the country might differ.

Democracy requires that we resolve our differences not by force but by persuasion; not by threats, but by votes; not by silencing votes, but by answering them.

Today, we all join together to mourn the Kirk family.

Let's recommit ourselves to the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MR. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, which would eliminate the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and give a President, any President, the sole power to make nominations for D.C. local courts, which deal with municipal issues.

Right now, under the Home Rule Act, the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission submits a list of three candidates for each judicial vacancy. Of course, then it is considered by the President. This bill would wipe away the commission, and it would allow the President to directly appoint and have full control over the selection of these judges.

This is an absurd level of Federal control over local judges. Every State and territory in the United States selects its own judges. Only in D.C. do Republicans think that President Trump should decide who the local judges are.

Let's also be honest about what the bill is really about. This has nothing to do with public safety. It is a power grab to take away power and authority from over 700,000 residents of this district.

Let's be clear. D.C. does face a judicial vacancy crisis. There are currently 15 open seats across the Superior Court of D.C. and D.C. Court of Appeals. There are 13 on the superior court side and two on the court of appeals. Why do those vacancies actually exist? The commission has submitted names for every single one of those open seats.

The bottleneck is not the commission. It is the slow pace of nominations by the President and confirmations by this Senate. The Senate can solve this tomorrow, and we know who controls the Senate. It is the Republicans.

Let's be honest about what this bill is really about. It is not about the Constitution. It is about partisanship. The House majority wants to give Donald Trump the ability to select judges for local municipal matters for Washington, D.C., and bypass the current commission process that exists.

This is another attempt for Republicans to try to gut D.C.'s nonpartisan judiciary and replace it with partisan rightwing judges.

The legislation does nothing to improve the judicial system. It strips away one of the few tools D.C. residents have to shape their courts, and it erodes judicial independence. The bill isn't necessary. It is undemocratic. It really goes to the independence of our courts.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my good friend that in Texas local judges are elected by Texas citizens, not chosen directly by the President. In this case, in this bill, they want to bypass any sort of local control of the selection of judges and have these appointees be chosen directly by Donald Trump. That is wrong, and Members should oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just will clarify for the gentleman from Texas that these are not Federal circuit judges. They have the same jurisdiction as State and local judges. That is what actually the bill presented says. These are local judges. They are not circuit judges. They are not Federal judges.

Let's be clear what this is about. This is about allowing Donald Trump to select local judges for D.C. and bypass a commission system that is currently in place where the President still has an ability to select from a panel of different judges. There is no State in the United States, in our country, that allows the President to directly select local judges. This is an outrageous attempt to take away power from 700,000 residents and to hurt our independent judiciary system here in the District.

This bill is not about safety. It is not about the Constitution. It has nothing to do with Federal Circuit court judges. It is a power grab for Donald Trump to self-select judges.

Finally, as I close, I remind all our friends that all of these D.C. bills in front of us are about Donald Trump trying to play Mayor of Washington, D.C. If he wants to be mayor, he should resign from President and run for mayor himself.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, which would overrule rules implemented by D.C.'s elected leaders on when Metropolitan Police officers should pursue a fleeing car.

Our debate here is a perfect example of why D.C. needs self-rule. We should be clear. High-speed chases are deadly. They often end in needless deaths, injuries, and devastating property damage.

Over 3,000 people died in police car chases in the U.S. between 2017 and 2022. Half of those deaths were innocent bystanders not involved in the chase. I will repeat. Half of the people who have died in police car chases were innocent bystanders. That should alarm every single one of us.

Across the country, Republican-led States have recognized the dangers of high-speed cases. States like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee have all implemented tighter standards to limit pursuits of violent criminals or imminent threats. They know the risks are too high for people who are innocent or could get caught up in one of these car crashes. That is the best practice, and D.C. is following the same path.

But my Republican colleagues want to interfere. They want to lower the standards to allow for more chases and more innocent people getting hurt.

I will remind us that this District is dense. Sidewalks oftentimes are small. Streets are tight. There are a lot of folks who live here. We should not have a one-size-fits-all policy for D.C. We should allow the people of D.C. to decide when a car chase is appropriate.

Congress should not require D.C. police to use tactics that the community does not want. D.C. residents should be empowered to decide when to authorize their police to use dangerous tactics.

Under current D.C. law, pursuits are allowed if a fleeing suspect has committed a violent crime, for example, or poses an imminent threat to public safety and if the pursuit can be done in a way that minimizes the risk to innocent people.

We should not lower these standards, and certainly not with zero community input and no consultation with the D.C. Council, Mayor, or other folks who are actually trying to manage this city.

There are many tools, we know, that police officers can use to track suspects and make arrests. We should let the Council, the Mayor, and the police work together with the D.C. police to balance public safety, pedestrian safety, and proportionality. If D.C. residents don't like it, they can vote their elected officials out of office.

Today, Congress is again injecting itself as some sort of super city council to write laws for Washington, D.C. As a former mayor of 8 years, I worked with over 700 amazing men and women of a police department who were heroic in the work that they did. I know that, in conversations with our chief, our police officers, and our community, these decisions are best left to our communities to write the laws of when these police chases should actually go into effect.

While I appreciate the author and my friend, this bill, I believe, is unnecessary. It undermines home rule, and it will make D.C. less safe.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) also for his service in law enforcement. I know that he is trying to help and trying to move public safety forward. I know that is his intention, but I just want to clarify a few things.

It has been mentioned that this committee or this bill has somehow been heard by a committee. We have not held a hearing on these bills. To clarify, our hearing on D.C. is actually tomorrow. There has been no coordination with the Mayor or the D.C. Council. They oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will clarify. It has been mentioned a few times when we have debated this bill that there are somehow 14 criteria that officers have to consider before engaging in a pursuit.

The law is very clear. The suspect must have ``committed or attempted to commit a crime of violence, or poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury,'' and the pursuit is ``necessary to protect another person'' from ``serious bodily injury''; and not likely to cause injury to others; and ``all other options have been exhausted or do not reasonably lend themselves to the circumstances.'' That is actually what the law says.

I just wanted to note that. I am not sure what those 14 criteria are.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. McIver).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ivey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

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

I strongly oppose this bill. D.C.'s elected leaders have set clear, commonsense limits on high-speed chases and limits that save lives. I just remind folks that States like Texas, Florida, and Tennessee recognize the danger and restrict pursuits to violent crimes or imminent deaths, and D.C. follows that same practice.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize, honor and support the American Covid Memorial established by the U.S. Covid-19 Victims & Heroes National Memorial Foundation, as the 65th U.S. National Memorial. The memorial will serve as our Nation's solemn tribute of dignity and reverence to those we lost in the pandemic.

The U.S. Covid-19 pandemic is the deadliest human tragedy to occur in all 250 years of American History, with more than 1.2 million deaths. The scale of this tragedy is almost incomprehensible. Covid killed as many Americans as every war since the foundation of our country combined--twice as many people as the 1918 influenza pandemic and three times as many Americans as died in World War II. These are losses that every person in this country feels deeply, and it is a moment in history that will shape the United States for years to come.

In addition to remembering those we lost, the American Covid Memorial will serve to celebrate the 31 million heroes--16 million medical and 15 million non-medical, essential frontline workers--who bravely and selflessly worked to provide lifesaving healthcare, deliver supplies, and maintain vital community services during the pandemic. Their efforts saved lives and kept our country running.

The first recorded U.S. case of the new Coronavirus was reported January 20, 2020, in a 35-year-old American citizen traveling from Wuhan, China to his home in Snohomish County, Washington State.

On February 6, 2020, 57-year-old Patricia Dowd, a semi-conductor manufacturer in San Jose, California became the first confirmed U.S. Covid-19 death in the United States.

On March 13, 2020, U.S. Presidential Proclamation 9994 was issued declaring the Coronavirus pandemic a National Public Health Emergency.

On February 22, 2021, Proclamation 10148 was issued by the President of the United States recognizing 500,000 Covid-19 deaths, calling on the Nation to conduct a moment of national silence during a candle lighting ceremony at the Lincoln Memorial.

On May 12, 2022, the President of the United States issued Proclamation 10394 marking the tragic milestone of one million American lives lost to Covid-19, stating that ``As a Nation, we must not grow numb to such sorrow. To heal, must remember.

On April 11, 2023, the President of the United States signed House Resolution 7--Public Law 118-3, declaring the Covid-19 National Public Health Emergency terminated.

National memorials are an American tradition to commemorate people and events of historical significance and, the Covid-19 pandemic in the United States is an event of profound historical significance. It is in the public interest to establish a National Memorial to remember the lives of those no longer with us and honor the incredible service to our country by heroes working on the front lines.

I ask my fellow Members of Congress and leaders across our country, to join me in supporting the dedication of an American Covid Memorial and to help build the U.S. Covid-19 National Registry of Victims and Heroes to help preserve the memories of the 1.2 million lives we lost.