Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 951, I call up the bill (H.R. 4371) to amend the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 to enhance efforts to combat the trafficking of children, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4371.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation, H.R. 4371, the Kayla Hamilton Act.

This legislation, at its core, is about common sense, in that if we had done a simple fix like this, Kayla would still be alive. It is something that I think my Democrat counterparts have lost track of during the last administration.

During the Judiciary Committee hearing, Kayla was referred to by one of my Democrat colleagues, who repulsively called her a ``random dead person.''

Kayla was a beloved daughter. She loved life. She loved her family. She had a cat named ``Oreo'' that she cared for. She loved her God. She was a young woman whose future was stolen from her by someone who never should have been in this country to begin with it.

In 2022, during the Biden-Harris administration, Kayla's killer illegally crossed the southwest border as an unaccompanied alien child, what they commonly refer to as a ``UAC.'' Walter Javier Martinez, a 16- year-old Salvadoran national, admitted to authorities that his aunt paid a guide $4,000 to smuggle him into the United States.

As is required by law with most UACs, Walter was then transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the Department of Health and Human Services. Instead of conducting a basic criminal or gang affiliation check, HHS instead focused on programming and wellness activities while missing clear signs of gang involvement.

Despite incomplete information and the sponsor's lack of legal status in the country themselves, HHS approved the placement. Martinez ran away within weeks from his sponsor, becoming 1 of more than 150,000 UACs that the last administration lost track of.

According to his sponsor, months later, Walter left to: ``do what he was doing in his home country--get in trouble on the streets and hang out with gang members.''

The Federal Government just needed to make a phone call to El Salvador. That is all that would have solved this. Instead, Kayla was brutally murdered because the government failed to vet Walter, a known MS-13 gang member with gang tattoos and a criminal history.

The Kayla Hamilton Act will help to ensure that another murder like Kayla's does not happen. First, this bill requires HHS to find out for UACs who are over 12 years of age if there is a criminal history or gang affiliation or gang activity in the child's home country.

Opponents falsely claim that the bill mandates strip searches. It simply allows checks for gang tattoos during routine medical intake. This stuff already happens. We are just asking that somebody ascertain whether that tattoo is related to a gang.

We also ask that they check their home country and see if they have a criminal background. We are not doing that. This is common sense.

Under this bill, gang-affiliated UACs would be housed in a secure facility designed to protect them from themselves and others. Opponents say this provision will lead to the indefinite detention of children.

In reality, UACs will be held only for the pendency of their immigration proceedings. That is it. When an alien is in a secure placement, their immigration proceedings generally are resolved expeditiously, within weeks or months.

Next, the bill bars illegal aliens from serving as sponsors. I think that is a key component to protect the children themselves. UACs should not be placed in the home of a person with no immigration permanence in this country, where their caregiver may be deported at any moment. That is not a stable environment for a child to live or thrive.

The Democrats say that this bill will cause family separation. This reform ends the perverse incentive that encourages illegal alien parents to have their children smuggled across the border. That practice is happening right now. This has been happening for years, particularly under the last administration. We should not be complicit in the smuggling of children into this country. No more.

In the last administration, the UACs were placed with sponsors before required background checks were even finalized. Mr. Speaker, that is kind of the point, right? For a UAC, we are not going to place a child in somebody's home where we don't know who they are and don't know their background. That is actually what was happening under the last administration. In some cases, criminal and sex offender checks were never initiated.

H.R. 4371 will end this insanity. By enshrining in law rigorous background check requirements, this will ensure UACs will not be placed with criminals or child abusers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation to take a first step in reforming our very flawed UAC Program.

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

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

I prefer to keep the focus on the actual bill and not distracting arguments on a myriad of topics.

I think it is important to remember how we got to this place. We got to this place because of the failed policies of the Biden-Harris administration that imported millions of people into this country, that smugglers, paid in cash by parents in other countries, smuggled kids into our country.

Many of those kids, probably the vast majority of them, are innocent kids. But the Democrats in the House, specifically in the Judiciary Committee, seem to focus that that is the entire picture. That is not the entire picture.

Walter Javier Martinez was a gang member, and we didn't know it. Our own Federal Government, that is tasked with protecting the lives of the citizens of this country, did not know because they never called his country of origin. If they had, instead of doing paper-mache or other things they were doing for this kid that came into the country, they would have found out from his country that, yes, he has a history of gang activity. Yes, if we had screened him for gang tattoos, we would have found that, yes, he has a gang tattoo.

All we are saying in this legislation is that we have a little bit of common sense in this country. At the end of the day, when somebody comes in, the vast majority of these kids will probably go to a sponsor and not be in some sort of secure facility. But for the kids who are over 12 and under 18 who have a history of criminal actions, who have a gang tattoo on their forehead or another part of their body, all we are saying is maybe we shouldn't put those kids in our streets, right? Because every week seems to be another story, another Kayla Hamilton.

For the 3 years that I have been a part of this body, what I have seen is that the other side of the aisle buries their head in the sand to the real malaise that is going on in our streets

when these immigrants are causing a lot of these problems.

Why don't we get a little bit smarter about the things that we do in this country? Maybe we wouldn't have so many Kayla Hamiltons. I think that is important.

On the flip side of this equation, we know that the last administration lost kids, hundreds of thousands of kids. They did not know where they were. That is unconscionable to me that we were so busy--HHS, with Secretary Becerra, was so busy trying to set up his Ford assembly line that he was pushing people out into our communities who run away and who cause mayhem in our streets. That is alarming to me that our Federal Government would not be more responsible.

Can you imagine going to a State family court and saying to the Judge: Don't worry about the background checks; just send the kid out. Don't worry about the background checks on the sponsor. Just place them in this home, because at least he has got a roof over his head. We don't know anything about the people he is going to live with, but just place him up there. That State court judge would be thrown out of his position in a minute.

Somehow it is okay for the Federal Government to not do its job here. I think that is reckless. I think that is completely irresponsible, not only to the citizens who expect safety and security from their Federal Government but to the kids who are here.

Why would we give a child to a sponsor who we don't know anything about their background? We haven't done the sexual background checks; the sex registry checks. We haven't done the criminal background checks to see who these sponsors are. We are just going to let the kid go out there.

By doing nothing, that is exactly what the Democrats are arguing right now. I think that is irresponsible on so many levels.

Part of this is to protect future Kayla Hamiltons from happening in this country by unscrupulous and dangerous minors who are in this country. The other is to protect the kids themselves from sponsors who haven't been properly vetted.

If we care about the safety and well-being of children, which I hope that we all do, this is an easy lift, that our Federal Government would have a little bit more common sense, that we wouldn't set up a Ford assembly line and push people out into our communities and lose track of where they are.

In the case of Walter, think about this: He goes to his sponsor and within weeks he is gone. The Federal Government had no idea that he left, for months. The only way that they found out was after he killed Kayla Hamilton, months later.

The sponsor didn't say anything. Walter didn't turn up anywhere until he killed somebody. We didn't know about it? We didn't know about these things? I think that is reckless.

This bill is common sense. I think this country wants a little bit of common sense. I think they deserve a little bit of common sense. They want their Federal Government to work for them. They want to feel like when a child comes to this country, however he or she came to this country, that we would vet them before we place them in our communities and allow them to cause mayhem.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, just briefly, in response, I appreciate the comments, but I wish that the gentlewoman from California would have been in the Judiciary Committee hearing to learn what the law actually says. It is something that she

has completely omitted from her remarks.

She said that kids are subject to strip searches under this bill. Mr. Speaker, we already do medical evaluations of children when they come into this country. That is already in practice. All we are saying is that when there is a tattoo on your shoulder or on your forehead that is a gang tattoo, then maybe we shouldn't send you into the streets.

They said that this bill is anti-children somehow, that it keeps children from being separated from their families. If there is somebody who is smuggled across our border who has a gang affiliation or prior gang convictions or charges in their country of origin, then maybe we shouldn't unite them with their family in this country when they are a danger to themselves and to the rest of society.

I appreciate the comments, but I think a little bit of homework and due diligence would have made those remarks a lot more effective.

I think it was said that the sponsors already receive background checks. Yes, presumably, they do. However, in these cases what we saw during the Biden-Harris administration was while the background checks were ongoing and not yet complete, we were sending kids to houses with sponsors without background checks.

That is the rub. That is the problem. That is what this bill will fix so that we no longer have the lawlessness that we saw in the last 4 years.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here stunned and astonished for 1 minute that just 1 second ago I talked about what the law was, and despite that, the gentlewoman from Illinois comes forward to, again, repeat the same old, tired hackneyed lies that they have been perpetuating for months about this bill.

If they want to complain about theses strip searches that they say occur or are occurring under this bill, maybe they should go talk to the Member of their conference who wrote the original law that processed this: the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008. That was a Zoe Lofgren bill.

They want to complain about the medical evaluations that happen right now under a bill that they wrote, and they want to blame Republicans.

This kind of reminds me of: The economy is the Republicans' fault, but they are the ones who caused the inflation crisis under Joe Biden. The border is secure, but we saw millions of people illegally come into this country causing mayhem. Housing is too expensive, but they have regulated all businesses in this country into the ground in the last administration.

These are things that they have caused.

They want to talk about how we can perfect the medical evaluations of minors who come into this country. Fine, we can talk about that. However, I think there has to be a little bit of ownership for a minute that they are the ones who created the dang law, not us.

All we are saying is that when you go through that medical evaluation, Mr. Speaker, when you come into this country and you are screened, that we just look for gang tattoos.

The hyperbole is, quite frankly, disturbing and absurd. There was one member of the Democratic Judiciary Committee who said that kids were going to have a colonoscopy because of this. The last time I checked, Mr. Speaker, you can't get a tattoo on your colon. That is not how this works. We are just saying that when you go through this medical evaluation, Mr. Speaker, that somebody checks and says that they have a tattoo. They have a tattoo on their shoulder, on their forehead, on their neck, on their ear, below their eye, I don't know.

When we identify that and it looks like a gang tattoo, then maybe we shouldn't release that person into our streets. I think a little bit of intellectual honesty would go a long way. If they want to talk about medical evaluations and whether we should do them or not, good, then write a bill that amends the bill that they already wrote that became law in 2008.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman said that we were ripping children away from their mother's arms. Let me remind the gentlewoman from Florida that these are kids who are by themselves when they come to this country. However their parents decide that they should send them here. They are here without their parents. That is why they are a UAC. That is the legal term, an unaccompanied alien child. They do not have their parents present.

Again, the gentlewoman thinks that we are criminalizing kids. No, we are not. We are just saying that we should check the backgrounds of these children when they come in because not every child is this innocent, sweet child when they come in here. Most of them probably are, but not every one of them is. Sometimes, they have very troubled home lives and troubled communities, and for whatever reason, they are in our country.

Let's not repeat the mistakes of their country of origin and just let them out onto our streets. In the case of Walter Javier Martinez, he didn't stay with his sponsor but for a couple of weeks. Then, he was out on the streets by himself again, doing the exact same thing he did in his country of origin.

Let's get the facts a little bit straight when we talk about this.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today, we have an opportunity to take seriously the deficiencies in our UAC Program that have been exposed in the last 4 years of the Biden-Harris administration. Kids who are gang members in their country of origin are allowed to go to a sponsor.

Instead of doing background checks on the kids or checking for tattoos, we give them papier-mache projects and ask them to identify their gender if they feel comfortable talking about it. These are things that actually happened with Walter Javier Martinez.

Rather than take that money that the American people have given to the U.S. Treasury to spend for their safety, we are doing these ridiculous things instead of actually vetting a gang member from El Salvador.

Why don't we do it a little bit better in this country? Why can't we be a little bit smarter in this country?

Mr. Speaker, I will concede very easily that most kids are probably innocent. I have no problem with that, but for the ones that aren't, why are we putting them on our streets? Why are we not conducting adequate background checks on their pasts?

It took, in this case, a local cop in Maryland calling his country of origin to find out, after Kayla was murdered, that he had a criminal past. Why wouldn't we do that on the front end before we have a Kayla Hamilton?

On the flip side of this, I think this is just common sense, that if the law says that sponsors should undergo background checks before we release a kid, sure. Under the last administration, they were too busy pushing kids to sponsors at a record pace that they never even allowed those background checks of the sponsors to come back. They pushed kids into homes before we even knew what the sponsor was like, who they were, or what kind of background they had.

Mr. Speaker, that is reckless endangerment of a child. If we have, all of a sudden, the care and custody of an unaccompanied alien child, maybe we should make sure that the person we send them to isn't a criminal themselves, isn't engaged in sexual exploitation, and isn't engaged in human trafficking.

That is common sense, but what I have heard is that we are going to keep repeating the same tired lies, the same tired fabrications of what actually is going on in this country. Let's be a little bit smarter about the way that we do business.

We can protect kids with this bill. We can also protect our citizens to make sure that Kayla Hamiltons don't happen in every community in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3632, the Power Plant Reliability Act, introduced by my colleague from the Ninth District of Virginia.

This legislation enhances existing authorities under Federal law to provide targeted and temporary relief when premature plant closures create a shortage of electricity until sufficient replacements can come online.

Throughout the year, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has held several hearings with grid operators, utilities, co-ops, and experts across the energy sector. Without fail, these witnesses have stated that our Nation is shutting down too much generation and not replacing it with adequate alternatives.

Don't take my word for it. Last month, NERC, the very entity that Congress charged with protecting reliability, called the reliability crisis a ``five-alarm fire.''

South Carolina has seen this, where Federal regulations under Obama and Biden made the operation of baseload power plants so expensive that they had no choice but to shut down.

House Republicans are listening to the experts and advancing the Power Plant Reliability Act to expand the toolbox for States and grid operators to secure the grid and improve long-term planning for our generation resources.

I will say, as a practical matter, we can see the results of this play out on the world stage. When we look to our ally, Taiwan, which is shutting down power plants and trying to replace them with wind and solar, what is the practical effect of that happening? Brownouts throughout the island. If we are shutting down power but not replacing it, what is going to happen to our country? I think the lesson that we can learn is, let's not repeat what is happening in other parts of the world. Let's do our own thing and make sure that we have adequate generation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4323) to provide for the vacating of certain convictions and expungement of certain arrests of victims of human trafficking, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4323.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4323, the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act, is a strong, bipartisan piece of legislation--and bicameral, actually--that will help one of our most vulnerable populations.

This legislation passed the House Judiciary Committee by a voice vote earlier this year, and I am looking forward to seeing it pass the full House.

Human trafficking is a heinous crime that we are all too familiar with. Human trafficking is not just a distant problem. It is a crisis that touches every corner of our Nation, rural communities and urban centers. It can occur anywhere, in any community, and it does not discriminate. Traffickers exploit the vulnerable wherever they may find them.

We see it happen to a vast number of women and children who are exploited after crossing our southern border. We see it happen to people from both low-income and high-income backgrounds. We see it happen to ordinary Americans, people who never imagined that they would become victims themselves.

Efforts by Federal, State, and local law enforcement and advocates to eliminate trafficking and to support victims have increased awareness, reporting, and prosecution of sex traffickers across the country. However, victims of these crimes are sometimes prosecuted for their actions taken while under the control of their traffickers. This can lead to the arrest, conviction, and incarceration of actual trafficking victims themselves without proper consideration of their criminal culpability.

We know that criminal convictions, and even nonviolent ones, can hold someone back from applying for a job or getting housing. These victims deserve to be able to heal and move on with their lives.

Thankfully, we have made significant progress to help survivors. Today, the vast majority of States--in fact, 46 or 47--have some sort of relief to victims for nonviolent offenses committed while under the control of their traffickers. These laws allow individuals to reenter their communities and move on with their lives.

My home State of South Carolina continues to lead on this forward- looking, victim-centered approach. The Trafficking Survivors Relief Act follows the States' clear lead and provides Federal relief to survivors of human trafficking who committed a nonviolent offense as a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking.

For a court to grant this relief, a defendant must show that the offense was committed as a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking.

To ensure that these opportunities are only available to true victims of trafficking and not criminals, we have worked hand in hand with law enforcement to include appropriate safeguards in the bill. The legislation allows for additional evidence to be considered, including the sworn testimony of a law enforcement officer as to whether a victim had any role in coercing other victims into criminal offenses.

This legislation is endorsed by multiple advocacy organizations, faith-based organizations, and law enforcement officials. This is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that unites both law enforcement and victim organizations. It is a good piece of legislation.

There are countless individuals and organizations that have worked tirelessly to get this bill to where it is today, including CPAC Foundation's Center for Combating Human Trafficking, NCOSE, Rights4Girls, Street Grace, survivor leader Hollie Nadel, and so many more.

Last Congress, a bipartisan group of attorneys general wrote a letter in strong support of the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act. This carefully crafted legislation strikes the right balance in protecting victims' rights and public safety.

Let's work together to fight back against this evil, to help victims and survivors begin a new chapter, and to allow them to take on every opportunity that life hands them without any constraint of their past.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act, and I encourage swift passage in the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on the bill and am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in this moment on H.R. 4323, the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act, in somewhat of a deja vu. I did this legislation at the State level, and I talked to victims of human trafficking and those who have used this legal mechanism as a sense of relief to expunge their crimes, to get their prior convictions vacated, to apply for housing, and to go on with their lives in a very meaningful way.

What they would share with me and what I will share with you today is that this absolutely matters to them. Being able to turn the page on their past is not easy. It is not easy for a victim of human trafficking to come forward. There is shame sometimes in doing so. There is extreme guilt. When they get that chance to do that, this is an incredibly important step.

Here is the caveat that I think is often overlooked. Law enforcement loves this bill, too. Why is that? Because during a prosecution of a criminal defendant who is a trafficking victim, or within a conviction of a human-trafficking victim, victims are allowed to tell their story. One, it is very therapeutic and helpful to the victims themselves, but for the law enforcement folks, they can go after the real bad actors.

I think that is the key crux of this bill, and I think that is what unites Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate Members, and the law enforcement community and victim organizations. It is a great piece of public policy that has worked so well in 46, 47, 48 States at this point, and there is no reason why the Federal Government should lag behind the States anymore in crafting a very good, commonsense piece of legislation.

This bill is victim-centered. It is law enforcement-focused, as well. It checks all the boxes of good public policy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Izzy Soto and her teammates on the United States National Development Team for winning a gold medal at the 2025 Pan American Inline Hockey Championships in Oaxtepec, Morelos, Mexico.

Representing our Nation with pride and determination, the team demonstrated remarkable resilience by winning four consecutive games to capture the championship title. I am especially proud to note that Izzy is from Myrtle Beach and was the only member of the Women's Junior Team from South Carolina, making her achievement even more meaningful for our state and the Grand Strand community.

Their accomplishment reflects the best of American spirit, teamwork, and perseverance. Competing at this level not only showcased their skill but also provided invaluable experience playing alongside and against some of the best athletes in the world.

I commend Izzy, her teammates, and their coaches for their dedication and sportsmanship, and I extend my best wishes to all those continuing to compete in future tournaments. Their success brings great pride to the United States and serves as an inspiration to young athletes everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, a spiritual leader recognized around the world as both a bridge builder and a peacemaker.

For decades, Patriarch Bartholomew has endured harassment and persecution, yet he has remained steadfast in his mission to foster reconciliation between East and West, to promote interfaith dialogue, and to speak out forcefully against fanaticism and violence. His efforts to defend human rights and religious freedom have earned him deep respect among people of many faiths.

Patriarch Bartholomew's unwavering commitment to peace, compassion, and justice has left a profound impact on the world, and his example continues to inspire people across the globe.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing his extraordinary service and lasting contributions to humanity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Domtar Marlboro Mill in Bennettsville, South Carolina, which since 1990 has been a cornerstone of economic growth, innovation, and community service.

As the last greenfield paper mill built in the United States, it employs more than 300 workers, contributes over $800 million annually to the regional economy, and produces essential paper and pulp products used across the Nation.

The mill has earned recognition for its commitment to safety, efficiency, and responsible forestry, while also investing in Marlboro County through scholarships, service projects, and support for local organization.

The Marlboro Mill stands as a source of pride for South Carolina's 7th District, and I commend its workforce and leadership for their lasting contributions to our state and country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a remarkable man and devoted member of the Myrtle Beach community, Mr. Lloyd W. Coppedge, who passed away on July 19th at the age of 80, surrounded by family and friends.

Born in Abilene, Texas, Lloyd was a devoted husband, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and a friend to all. After graduating from Texas Tech with a degree in accounting, Lloyd brought his talents and heart to the business world, eventually purchasing Wolverine Brass in Myrtle Beach in 1988. There, he not only built a thriving company, but a family. He knew every employee by name, cared for their families, and led with a huge heart.

His entrepreneurial spirit extended to the restaurant industry, where he became a partner in Divine Dining, helping grow a beloved institution and once again touching the lives of thousands through his generosity and leadership.

But beyond his business accomplishments, Lloyd's legacy lives in the lives he impacted, from his daughters Tracie and Allison, to his wife Judi, to his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and even to the many ``adopted'' friends and family he made around the world.

Lloyd Coppedge led with integrity, treated everyone with kindness, and never stopped working to make his community better. If you had Lloyd as a friend, you knew you had a guardian angel.

May we remember his legacy, not just in words, but in the way we treat those around us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Navy Club of Georgetown, South Carolina, as it celebrates an extraordinary milestone, its 100th anniversary. Since 1925, this group has united veterans of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. From the shores of South Carolina to all around the world, they've served our Nation with honor.

For generations, the Navy Club has remained deeply embedded in the life of the Georgetown community--supporting Navy Junior Reserve Officers, honoring naval heritage, and fostering a spirit of unity among veterans and civilians alike.

What began in 1925, as a gathering of like-minded servicemembers, has grown into a lasting institution, one that continues to support generations of veterans through friendship, mentorship, and tradition. The Club's annual shrimp dinners have become a beloved local occasion, bringing people together to share stories, remember the past, and strengthen community ties.

The Navy Club's mission is clear: to honor the proud legacy of naval service in South Carolina. Through veteran outreach, youth engagement, and the preservation of time-honored customs, it safeguards our maritime traditions for the future.

As we mark this centennial, we are reminded of the enduring values that define our armed forces: honor, courage, and commitment. The Navy Club's story is one of lasting impact, civic pride, and a devotion to service that transcends generations.

Over the decades, it has built a strong foundation of fellowship and support, uplifting those who served, commemorating those we've lost, and building bridges within Georgetown. Its events have become more than social gatherings--they are touchpoints of history, community, and service.

Their passion for service, fellowship, and patriotism continues to inspire the next generation. On behalf of the people of South Carolina's Seventh District, I thank them and congratulate them on 100 years.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize an incredible public servant and a great friend, Mayor Marilyn Hatley of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, who is retiring after two decades of public service.

Marilyn has been a constant force for many years, leading with strength, dedication, and a genuine heart for the people of North Myrtle Beach.

She is a pioneer. She has worked harder than anyone. In fact, she is one of the hardest-working women that I know to make North Myrtle Beach not just a premier tourist destination but a place we are all proud to call home.

She has championed beach renourishment, expanded recreational opportunities, and helped build major infrastructure, all while keeping North Myrtle Beach on budget with some of the lowest taxes and crime rates in South Carolina.

The entire city is proud of the lasting impact Marilyn has made on North Myrtle Beach. I know she will enjoy this next chapter. She has earned it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the incredible season of the Coastal Carolina University baseball team. With grit, heart, and determination, these young men made the Chanticleer Nation, the Grand Strand, and all of South Carolina incredibly proud.

They battled their way into the College World Series final and left it all on the field. From the first pitch to the final out, they represented South Carolina with strength and skill.

I congratulate Coach Schnall and all of the players on a season to remember. Their run inspired fans across the Nation and reminded us why we love this game. We look forward to their continued success in the years to come. Chants Up.

Honoring Robert Franklin Childs III

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a dear friend of mine and a fixture in the Surfside Beach community, Mr. Robert Franklin Childs III, known to most as Bob.

Originally born in Washington, D.C., he spent 37 years working on Capitol Hill, starting in the electrical engineering department under the Architect of the Capitol.

After retiring from the Hill, Bob and his wife, Nancy, moved to Surfside Beach. There he continued his career in public service as the mayor of Surfside Beach from 2016 to 2020. He also served

on the Surfside Beach Town Council, the board of directors for the Horry County Council on Aging and the Waccamaw Regional Council of Governments. He brought honesty and common sense to local government and was loved by all.

When you look at the iconic Surfside Beach pier, know that it was Bob's tireless efforts, advocacy, and grit that rebuilt it after devastating hurricanes impacted our region.

Bob was an incredibly hard worker, and his passion for improving the lives of those around him always remained constant. Bob was an incredible person, too. He believed in passing the baton, in helping people, people who wanted to serve their community. Bob was a constant voice in their ear for good public service.

He was the kind of man who lived his values, not just in words, but in the way he treated others. May his memory leave a lasting legacy for all those who knew him.

Mr. Speaker, the Big Beautiful Bill Act is exactly what this country needs. It is bold. It is clear. It is packed with real solutions.

While Democrats have buried their heads in the sand on the biggest issues facing America, Republicans are stepping up. They ignored the border crisis while towns are overrun. They downplay inflation while families can't afford groceries. They pretend crime isn't skyrocketing while our cities become war zones.

Democrats would rather police our speech than protect our streets. They will rush to ban plastic straws but look the other way when fentanyl overruns our cities. When parents speak up at school board meetings, they get labeled as extremists, while actual criminals walk free.

The one big, beautiful bill does exactly what they won't. It secures the border, and it protects our communities. It strengthens our economy. It cuts taxes. It cuts waste. It unleashes American energy and puts the American people first.

Mr. Speaker, there are no more excuses and no more distractions. It is time to fix what is broken, and this bill is the blueprint.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 405, I call up the bill (H.R. 2255) to allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service weapons, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2255.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, will allow current or former Federal law enforcement officers in good standing to purchase a retired service weapon at salvage value from the Federal agency that issued the service weapon to the officer.

Under the bill, the administrator of general services would be required to establish a program to provide these purchases.

To be eligible to participate in the program, the officer must be in good standing with the agency and any firearm sold through the program must be sold within 6 months of the date when the firearm was retired.

Current Federal regulations require all Federal law enforcement agencies to destroy their firearms after they are retired from official use.

This regulation costs the American taxpayers millions of dollars every year. For example, in 2022, the Fraternal Order of Police notified Congress that multiple Federal law enforcement agencies were in the process of replacing their service weapons. The replacement of these service weapons accounted for the destruction of approximately 20,000 firearms, costing the taxpayers roughly $8 million.

Not only would this legislation cause agencies and the taxpayers to avoid that cost, but it would also recoup some of the taxpayers' dollars for the initial purchase of the firearm. American taxpayers should not be forced to pay for a service weapon twice, once at the initial purchase when it was acquired by the agency and then again when it is needlessly destroyed at the end of its life.

Law enforcement officers should have the opportunity to purchase the service weapon they used while serving in law enforcement.

By allowing officers to purchase their retired service weapons, this provides a starting point to keeping them safe so that they may protect their communities as well as themselves and their families.

This legislation is supported by 10 law enforcement organizations, the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Fraternal Order of Police, Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs of America, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Sergeants Benevolent Association NYPD, and the National Treasury Employees Union.

I hope my colleagues across the aisle recognize this bill not as a partisan measure but, much like it was last year, in fact, bipartisan when it was voted on in the House.

This is a commonsense, cost-saving initiative that supports law enforcement and the American taxpayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, just to discuss a few of the extraneous comments that were made by the minority party, the officer that is currently employed by a Federal law enforcement agency must be in good standing. In order for that to happen, obviously, they are not committing crimes.

Some of these things that are kind of coming out that the majority party is talking about or has talked about is the officer must be in good standing. If they have blemishes on their record, they are no longer employed or employable by that Federal agency.

Second of all, grenade launchers are not issued by Federal law enforcement agencies. They might be used by Federal law enforcement, but they are not issued to that officer. Sawed-off shotguns, the same thing, they are not issued to an officer. The officer must be in good standing.

In the event that the officer is retired within that 6-month period, these weapons don't sit around with their name on them in a locker room somewhere waiting for the weapon to also be retired. It is then issued to another officer.

The program only extends if you are retired, and you happen to have the ability when you are retired to purchase that retired service weapon, you have a 6-month period in which to do that. The window is very short.

GSA, under the bill, has every opportunity to come up with the rules and regulations related to this. A lot of this is distraction. This is the same bill that we passed last year. In fact, 13 Democrats supported this bill. The smoke and mirrors that is created by the minority just don't actually exist in reality.

This is a very commonsense bill. Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every single day. They should be able to purchase their service weapon. If the officer is retired and their service weapon is retired roughly commensurate to when they actually physically retire, then they can also purchase that. Anyone who is actually charged and convicted with a crime, that the gentleman talks about, would be precluded from doing this.

GSA has all the rights to come up with the regulations themselves. The statute is very clear. Law enforcement officers are not issued machine guns. They are not issued grenade launchers. They are not issued sawed-off shotguns or missile launchers or helicopters. These are not part and parcel to an officer's weapons in the line of duty. They are issued handguns, maybe a shotgun, and maybe a rifle. That is it.

These things are ultimately distractions. The DOGE stuff I won't respond to at all because it doesn't need to be.

This is a commonsense bill supported by a lot of law enforcement agencies, a lot of law enforcement organizations, and was voted on in a bipartisan fashion last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman said it applied to grenade launchers, sawed- off shotguns, and the like. Those are permitted to be used, but they are not issued to an officer.

They don't take those weapons home with them is the whole point. Under GSA--

To answer the gentleman's first question, if you are in good standing, then that means that you cannot have committed a felony.

The prohibited purchaser statute would preclude them from being able to purchase that to begin with.

GSA comes up with the regulations. That is laid out very clearly in the bill that they would come up with those regulations on an officer.

No. What I am saying is that these things are not actually in reality. People are not issued helicopters, grenades, or whatever else.

Because they are not actually issued it.

You cannot buy these things on the street.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, is a very commonsense piece of legislation supported by Republicans and, at least last Congress, by 13 Democrats, as well. Fourteen Members across the aisle voted in favor of this same exact bill, and I encourage more Members to do so as we honor police this week and into the future.

Law enforcement officers are faced with danger every single day, not only on the job, but when they return to their homes. This commonsense bill honors them a little bit and shows them that we want them to have these weapons in their homes to protect them, their property, and their families, as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 405, I call up the bill (H.R. 2240) to require the Attorney General to develop reports relating to violent attacks against law enforcement officers, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2240.

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

Mr. Speaker, police officers risk their lives every day to protect our communities. I extend my sincere gratitude to all law enforcement officers and their families for their service and sacrifice.

Unfortunately, law enforcement officers face the continued threat of unprovoked and ambush-style attacks. The bill before us, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, would require the Attorney General to develop a series of reports related to violent attacks on law enforcement officers.

The left's defund the police movement continues to have ripple effects throughout the country, as violent crime remains high and criminals have become more brazen in their attacks against police officers.

In addition, rogue prosecutors and leftwing bail reform policies continue to allow more criminals on the street with no accountability.

Let me be clear: The threat to officer safety is very real, and we must take a stand against any defund the police rhetoric.

In 2024, 342 officers were killed in the line of duty, with 79 of them shot in 61 ambush-style attacks. As of May 1, 2025, 109 officers have been shot in the line of duty just this year.

This violence against law enforcement is unacceptable and underscores the importance of this legislation.

While the government collects basic information on these attacks, such as when the attack occurred and what types of weapons are used, more information is needed to help law enforcement officers prepare for, identify, and prevent future anti-police activity.

This legislation would also shed light on the mental health consequences of the attacks on law enforcement and other trauma law enforcement deals with on a daily basis. Mental health resources are another critical need for law enforcement officers, as they continue to risk their lives every day to keep their communities safe.

We must take care of those who do so much to take care of us.

This legislation is common sense. It will gather more information to help Congress explore the best possible solutions for our law enforcement officers.

I would like to mention that 146 of my colleagues across the aisle voted in favor of this legislation last Congress. It is incredibly bipartisan.

Let's all work together to stand against attacks on law enforcement and support our men and women in blue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this crucial legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore), my good friend and the bill's primary sponsor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore).

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

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

This is an incredibly commonsense and bipartisan piece of legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Law enforcement has been demonized and attacked. They have been defunded in leftwing jurisdictions many years ago.

I hope that that movement is forever in the dustbin of our history because we owe it to law enforcement to support them in any number of ways that we can as policymakers. One of the easiest ways, in my mind, is this bill. Data is incredibly important, Mr. Speaker. You know this firsthand. Data is incredibly important. Understanding these attacks on our law enforcement, how it is affected by the officer, how these things occur, where they occur, these data points are incredibly important to understand and protect our law enforcement.

Last year, I think all of the Republicans and the vast majority of my Democratic colleagues supported this very measure. I hope that this year even more Democrats will support it and that it will be signed into law because this data is incredibly important to make sure that we protect our law enforcement officers. This is just a small way that we can advance that initiative forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Bobby Tyner, who passed away peacefully at his home in Surfside Beach, South Carolina, this week.

Bobby was a faithful steward of the Palmetto State and dutifully served our country as an engineer in the U.S. Army.

Following his service, Bobby became an advocate for those impacted by Agent Orange chemical exposure during the Vietnam war, helping to share the stories of veterans and their loved ones and advocate for good public policy.

Our country would not be where it is today without the sacrifices of Bobby and men and women like him serving on the front lines to ensure our Nation's freedom.

South Carolina's Seventh District will certainly miss Bobby. We will miss his grit. We will miss his passion. We will miss his humor. We will forever cherish the lives he touched as a husband, a father, and a veteran.

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