Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8772--Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2025.

As with all the additional appropriation bills up for consideration on the House Floor, I strongly oppose the passage of this bill for a myriad of reasons--including the following.

First, although this bill provides for a 3.5 percent increase over FY24 levels, sadly the underlying text contains many of the same harmful partisan policy riders as last year.

In particular, this bill

fails to confront the climate crisis by removing a longstanding provision to eliminate or reduce plastic waste across the Legislative Branch and the requirement for Members to lease low-emission vehicles;

contains the repeated misguided and harmful clause prohibiting discrimination against any person with a ``sincerely held religious belief, or moral conviction, that marriage is, or should be recognized as, a union of one man and one woman,'' opening the door for discrimination against LGBTQI+ Members and staff; and

bars funding for any diversity, equity, and inclusion training or implementation, a clear prohibition on the return of the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ODI) that was eliminated last year.

Indeed, it is truly unfortunate that this bill, like several others that the House Appropriations Committee recently reported, continues the Republican's obsession with cutting federal funds and eliminating programs that help to grow and diversify our country.

Yes, it is certainly a sad day in our nation's government that where we are at a place in time that backtracks and rolls back critical advances in diversity and inclusion.

It is bad enough that last year's bill eliminated dedicated funding for the House Office of Diversity and Inclusion, an office put in place to diversify and expand access to the House of Representatives.

To continue efforts to prohibit any funding for programs and training aimed at supporting diversity, equity and inclusion is simply an untenable legislative policy within our nation's government.

This House should make every effort to be reflective of the ENTIRE Nation we serve, and the districts Members represent.

Which is why I also put forth the following amendment that was shamefully excluded during the Appropriations Committee markup.

The Jackson Lee Amendment No. 30 if adopted would have stricken from the bill Sec. 212, which seeks to prohibit funding to be used for purposes of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ``DEI''.

The Legislative Branch bill should never be a place for divisive politics.

Rather, it should be used to ensure Congress has the tools it needs to legislate and support the constituents we serve.

In my home state of Texas, I proudly represent TX-18, a district that embodies the diverse melting pot of America.

According to the Greater Houston Partnership, Houston is one of the most diverse cities in the nation, with no ethnic majority and where nearly one-in-four residents are foreign-born.

Specifically, according to census data, Houston's population is 46.8 percent White, 44.5 percent Hispanic or Latino, 22.6 percent Black, 10.8 percent two or more races, and 6.8 percent Asian.

Additionally, as one of the fastest growing cities in the nation with increasingly important industries, Houston has the opportunity to set the standard for DEI practices in the workforce and society.

Despite dangerous attempts by the Governor of Texas to roll back and strip out DEI across educational and state-wide agencies, we must continue to push back and fight for what is right for our country and for the future generations of our Nation.

I look forward to contributing to diversity efforts around the nation and in my community in Houston.

Yes, it is important to embrace diversity--and it is good for the economy, too.

Not only have waves of immigration changed the face of the nation, but they have also brought in fresh perspectives, skills, and technologies to help the U.S. develop a strong adaptability to change.

It is no secret that economies generally fare better when they openly embrace and capitalize on new ideas.

Cultural diversity is also a mighty economic engine that powers our city, state, and national economy.

Diversity is important in all industries, as it allows businesses to work with a variety of perspectives, which can lead to best results for more communities.

I am a strong proponent of diversity in all of its forms as a means of advancing opportunity, inclusiveness and quality of life for everyone.

As a society, we have collectively directed a critical eye on the injustices that many Americans unfortunately face due to the color of their skin, gender, sexual orientation, migration status, socioeconomic standing.

We cannot let words like diversity, equity and inclusion become tarnished by extremists talking points.

No, DEI is not anathema to a free society, as it has been so disingenuously portrayed.

This pernicious emergence of a counter-narrative to DEI has spread false and dangerous misnomers that diversity and cultural inclusion is the promotion of racism and discrimination and that acknowledging and aiming to redress disparate impact is somehow inherently racist.

As we all know, ``equity'' literally means ``fairness and justice''.

How this term has somehow become a dirty word is symbolic of the dangerous territory we are now entering and must remain vigilant in claiming and reclaiming not only the words, but the meanings and actual and true implementation and realization of what we all know (and should know) words like ``justice'' ``fairness'', ``equality'' and ``equity'' mean and look like.

For these reasons, it is disappointing that this Jackson Lee Amendment No. 30 did not receive the full and fair consideration it deserves.

I respectfully request that my colleagues vote in opposition to H.R. 8772, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2025.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Office of Assistant Leader Joe Neguse and Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee Mark Takano for hosting this special order hour and helping to raise awareness about the extended efforts made to secure and expand PACT Act benefits for over 1 million veterans and survivors.

The landmark bipartisan Sergeant First Class Health Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act, otherwise known as the PACT Act, was signed into law in 2022, enacting perhaps the largest health care and benefit expansion in VA history.

This law provides expanded benefits to Veterans exposed to burn pits, Agent Orange, and other toxic substances, helping generations of Veterans--and their survivors, receive the critical care they deserve.

And as of 2024, these VA health care benefits were expanded to millions of Veterans--years earlier than initially called for by the 2022 passage of the PACT Act.

As a senior member of this Congress and a longtime supporter of Veterans, I know the passage of this law has been a step in the right direction to address all harms Veterans in America sadly face and continue to face, particularly Black and minority Veterans.

There is a long and painful history of denial of service-related toxic exposure that dates back to nuclear testing conducted during and in the decades following WWII that cause premature deaths, cancers and other service-related injuries.

For decades, millions of Veterans have unknowingly been exposed to toxic substances and radiation during their military service.

As a result of these exposures, Veterans have had to face a range of serious health complications, including many types of cancers, cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurological disorders, and other chronic illnesses.

Although the severity of the health issues can vary, many Veterans have faced debilitating conditions that require ongoing medical care and support and can cause disability, reduced quality of life, and premature death.

Current estimates suggest that more than 5 million Veterans were exposed to toxic substances or radiation during their service.

The type and extent of exposures vary significantly, depending on the time and location of a Veterans' military service:

During World War II, service members involved in construction projects and serving on ships were exposed to asbestos.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Veterans involved in nuclear testing and handling nuclear weapons risked exposure to radioactive materials.

During the Vietnam War Veterans faced exposure to Agent Orange, a toxic herbicide containing dioxin.

In particular, the pattern of not acknowledging service-related toxic exposure includes Agent Orange service-related exposure that was not acknowledged until passage of the Agent Orange Act of 1991.

Agent Orange was a herbicide used to defoliate vegetation and kill crops over the rural landscape in Vietnam from 1961 to 1971.

The health conditions caused by this exposure were compounded by mental distress when the government denied that the conditions were linked to Vietnam era military service.

Before passage of the PACT Act, Veterans with toxic exposures had to prove a direct connection between their medical conditions and a specific toxic exposure that they faced during their military service.

Because of the difficulty connecting a condition to an exposure, the VA denied nearly 80 percent of disability claims related to burn pit exposures before the passage of the PACT Act.

The PACT Act sought to remedy this from ever happening again.

In particular, the law added a ``presumptive'' service connection for hundreds of conditions linked to burn pits, agent orange, and other hazards while serving our country, and thus lowered the burden of proof required to receive disability benefits.

Now, the average nationwide percent service connection rate for Veterans with these granted claims is 70 percent, meaning that

they receive more than $20,000 in earned benefits payments from VA each year.

Additionally, nationwide, we know that Veterans have submitted over one million total claims since the PACT Act was enacted. And over 76 percent of all claims have been approved, a sharp increase from pre- PACT levels--resulting in over $2.4 billion in benefits to Veterans and the survivors.

These benefits are also particularly important to the state of Texas, which has the largest veteran population in the U.S.

Since its enactment in 2022, Texas has led the Nation in Veterans filing disability claims associated with the PACT Act at over 161,920.

From these PACT Act-related claims, VA has delivered more than $600,231,041.75 in earned benefits to Texas Veterans and survivors.

Importantly, since the PACT Act was signed into law, more than 68,867 Texas Veterans have also signed up for VA health care.

These numbers make clear that the PACT Act is working, ensuring that the courageous men and women who serve our country avoid having to navigate unnecessary webs of red tape to receive treatment or benefits.

Just as our Veterans made a commitment to serve our Nation, we too have a responsibility to serve them long after they take off the uniform.

With the passage of the PACT Act and the proactive steps the Administration has taken following its enactment to ensure that actual benefits are realized for over one million Veterans, Congress has done just that.

Mr. Speaker, each July 4th we have an opportunity to pause and reflect upon our past and celebrate our future for what we as a Nation have accomplished.

Today, we can celebrate that over the nearly two and a half centuries we have conquered the crucibles faced: from the civil war, global conflicts and global deadly pandemics and an assault on our Capitol-- the citadel of Democracy--the birthplace of all modern democracies.

The success of our democracy and the means provided to the people of this Nation to shape its present and guide it into the future has been and continues to be the ballot box.

Martin Luther King's Speech at the March on Washington explains the power of the vote to empower We The People to shape our destiny.

``Give us the ballot and we will no longer have to worry

the federal government about our basic rights . . . ``Give us

the ballot and we will no longer plead to the federal

government for passage of an anti-lynching law. . . ``Give us

the ballot and we will fill our legislative halls with men of

good will . . . ``Give us the ballot and we will place judges

on the benches of the South who will do justly and love mercy

. . . ``Give us the ballot and we will quietly and non-

violently, without rancor or bitterness, implement the

Supreme Court's decision of May 17, 1954 [in Brown v. the

Board of Education]

We are not governed by the rule of might makes right--which is what almost happened when January 6 insurrectionists attempted to overthrow our governmental process for electing our Nation's president.

We are Nation of laws--made by Americans on the behalf of Americans.

Which is why it also important to affirm and understand our history as Americans.

The United States came into being under impossible odds, a vast land mass housing separate colonies of disparate people with parochial interests up against the world's sole superpower of their time.

After the revolution, and a government was organized, King George was not alone in predicting its demise, because it was a collection of colonies trying to rule itself as a Nation.

The first schisms appeared as the industrial revolution took hold and women began to push against the bonds that limited them in social, economic and political expression.

Frederick Douglass a man ahead of his time championed the rights of women to vote and expressed the frustration of Black persons who knew the constitution's acceptance of slaves as three fifths of a person were wrong headed and counterproductive to the potential of the new Nation.

Douglass, wrote about ``What to the slave is your 4th of July'':

``[A] day that reveals to him, more than all other days in

the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the

constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your

boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness,

swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and

heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted

impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow

mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and

thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity,

are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and

hypocrisy--a thin veil to cover up crimes which would

disgrace a nation of savages''.

But Frederick Douglass was not bitter with America, he was determined to perfect America by making it better through his writings, lectures, speeches, and civic activism.

The efforts at perfecting this Nation are small and sometimes very great.

I am happy to have contributed to this effort by introducing legislation that led to the establishment of Juneteenth as a Federal Holiday--making manifest the Nation's rejection of slavery and embrace of the freedom and equality of rights Douglass hoped for.

The work of past generations and our work today is to perfect this democracy--to keep the experiment going--until we have made it consistent with its founding document:

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for hosting this Congressional Black Caucus Special Order to discuss the issue at the heart of American democracy--our right to vote.

This right is fundamental to our democracy and a threat to it is a threat to America itself.

A crucial benchmark of progress and inclusion in this country has been the passage of one of the most important pieces of legislation in our nation's history--the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Signed in to law by President Johnson, this legislation helped to reinforce America's promise of a truly democratic Nation and our 15th Amendment prohibition on denying Black Americans the right to vote.

The Voting Rights Act served as a beacon for full political participation and engagement in our nation for all Americans.

Because of that law, I stand before you as Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, the first African American woman Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, and a Senior Member on the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and the Budget Committees.

On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol and in the presence of such luminaries as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev. Ralph Abernathy of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Roy Wilkins of the NAACP; Whitney Young of the National Urban League; James Foreman of the Congress of Racial Equality; A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; John Lewis of the Student Non- Violent Coordinating Committee; Senators Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Everett Dirksen; President Johnson addressed the Nation before signing the Voting Rights Act:

``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.''

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was critical to preventing brazen voter discrimination violations that historically left millions of African Americans disenfranchised.

In 1940, for example, only about 3 percent of African Americans living in the South were registered to vote.

Poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence were the major causes of these racially discriminatory results.

In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress.

Few, if any, African Americans held elective office anywhere in the South.

Because of the Voting Rights Act, today there are more than 9,100 black elected officials, including approximately 60 members of Congress, the largest number ever.

Additionally, for the first time in our history, we have a Vice President, Kamala D. Harris, the first woman, first Black person and first Asian American to be sworn into that role.

Furthermore, we have the first Black woman, Ketanji Brown Jackson, serving as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Voting Rights Act opened the political process for many of the approximately 7,000 Hispanic public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including 56 of whom serve in Congress.

Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly.

The crown jewel of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is Section 2, which prohibits the implementation of voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act.

Historically, section 5 of the Voting Rights Act provided the crucial pre-clearance formula--a vital proactive measure to determine which states and jurisdictions were required to preclear new voting laws with the Department of Justice or a Federal Court.

For nearly 50 years, section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the preclearance formula outlined in section 4 moderated many of the

worst abuses and resulted in many states adopting voting laws and redistricting plans with an eye to satisfying the concerns of minority voters.

Despite Section 5's long history and crucial role in ensuring our democracy was by all the people and for all the people, 11 years ago the Supreme Court made a disastrous decision that crippled the Voting Rights Act and endangered voting rights nationwide.

In its 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision, the Supreme Court gutted the VRA, striking down section 4's crucial preclearance formula, rendering the proactive protections of section 5 unusable.

No longer could the Voting Rights Act take a proactive, preemptive role to stopping discriminatory legislation.

Since then, the need to protect the right to vote and safeguard our democracy has never been more urgent.

Following the Shelby County decision, state legislatures have targeted voters and erected deliberate barriers to the ballot box in what amounts to the most concerted effort to restrict voting access in generations. These new restrictive, discriminatory voting laws have included closing polling stations and reducing their hours, curbing early voting and vote by mail options, imposing strict ID requirements, limiting access to multi-lingual voting materials, and making more difficult to register to vote.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 31 states have passed 103 restrictive voting laws since the Shelby County v. Holder decision in 2013 (as of May 2024). These measures disproportionately impact voters of color, Native American voters, voters with disabilities, and the elderly.

A 2018 Brennan Center report concluded that states previously covered under the preclearance formula have purged voters off their rolls at a significantly higher rate than non-covered jurisdictions now that their new laws are no longer subject to the same level of oversight.

However, threats to voting rights nationwide have not stopped there.

The Supreme Court has continued to undermine key provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

In July 2021, in its Brnovich v. DNC and Arizona Republican Party v. DNC, the Supreme Court upheld racially discriminatory voter restrictions in Arizona despite evidence that these laws were intentionally designed to target Latino and other minority voters.

In doing so, the Court further weakened the Voting Rights Act, making it harder to challenge discriminatory laws under Section 2's anti- discrimination provisions.

Yet, the threats have not stopped there.

With the 2024 election approaching, voting rights have never been more important and yet have increasingly come under fire.

Since January of 2024, at least six states have enacted seven restrictive laws.

Some states have spent the past few years piling on restrictions.

Voters in 28 states will face new restrictions that weren't in place in the last presidential election.

These include a new law in Alabama and Idaho that broadly criminalizes certain forms of assistance with absentee voting and mail ballots, limiting voting access for elderly voters, voters with disabilities, and those with limited access to transportation.

Indiana enacted a law that heightens the chances that naturalized citizens will be wrongly removed from the voting rolls.

A new law in Tennessee restricts the time frame voters have to request an absentee ballot.

A new Arizona law shortens the period during which voters may correct issues with their signatures on mail ballots.

A new West Virginia law now requires county clerks to cancel the registrations of voters who get out of state driver's licenses, creating a burden on students, military members, and others who temporarily reside outside the state but intend to return and therefore remain eligible to vote in West Virginia.

In my home state of Texas, new restrictions have been implemented on absentee voting and new legislation empowers the state to more freely purge voter rolls--a process that often results in legitimate voters unknowingly being removed and finding themselves unable to vote come November.

In the face of all these threats, what can be done to preserve voting rights?

One crucial step is the passage of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

This landmark legislation would restore and modernize the protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In doing so, it would protect the right to vote and safeguard our democracy by preventing restrictive, discriminatory voting laws from taking effect.

It does so by establishing a new modern-day framework to determine which states and localities have a recent history of discrimination and require such jurisdictions to preclear new election changes, preventing restrictive and discriminatory voting laws from taking effect.

In other words, it revives and refreshes the preclearance formula for the modern era, enabling Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to once again preemptively prevent threats to voting rights.

It also restores Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by eliminating the heightened standard required to challenge discriminatory voting laws created by the Supreme Court in Brnovich v. DNC.

Voting rights should not be a partisan issue.

It is the duty and responsibility of Congress to safeguard voting rights across our Nation.

Our freedom to vote is our most sacred and fundamental right.

It is the right upon which all our other rights rest, and allows us to determine the future of our communities and families, and ensure opportunities for all.

Since enactment, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been reauthorized five times with large, bipartisan majorities.

The VRA's most recent authorization occurred in 2006 when it passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate (98-0) and was signed by Republican President George W. Bush.

There is no reason that the effort to restore the VRA to its full strength should be any different.

While Republicans veered away from this bipartisan tradition last Congress, opposing the bill in the House and blocking debate in the Senate, this Congress provides a new opportunity to side with the American people and the fundamental principle that everyone has an equal opportunity to have their voice heard and vote counted.

We must reject the cynicism that Republicans at the highest level have espoused when talking about making voting more accessible for all.

Allowing every eligible vote to be cast and counted is not a ``power grab.''

For democracy to work for all of us, it must include us all, no matter our background.

The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore and modernize the essential portion of the Voting Rights Act that blocks discriminatory voting policies before they go into effect, creating a transparent process for protecting everyone's freedom to vote.

I have also repeatedly introduced legislation that further enshrines our voting rights.

H.R. 42--the Coretta Scott King Mid-Decade Redistricting Prohibition Act prohibits a state where the congressional districts have been redistricted after a decennial census from carrying out another redistricting until after the next apportionment of Representatives following a decennial census, unless a court requires the state to conduct a subsequent redistricting to comply with the Constitution or enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This legislation was also a response to the Shelby County decision, as after the 2020 census, many state legislatures redrew aggressive new measures now that they were no longer subject to preclearance.

For example, Republicans in North Carolina converted a congressional map that elected 8 Republicans and 5 Democrats into one that could elect 11 Republicans and just 3 Democrats.

The North Carolina map was skewed in a way that targets Black political power, meaning that a state that is 20 percent Black could have only a single Black member of Congress representing them.

Congressional maps in Texas, Ohio, and Georgia are also all considered severe partisan gerrymanders.

This redistricting cycle also saw unprecedented efforts to undermine the political power of Black, Hispanic, Asian and Native communities, especially in Southern states.

While redistricting after a new census is almost always a partisan process, this bill protects the redistricting process from being employed too often to skew the maps even further.

Under H.R. 42, once the first redistricting is complete after the new census, the state's maps cannot be redrawn again until the next census, unless a court mandates otherwise.

Like the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, this is another vital piece of legislation that should receive broad support from my colleagues as it enshrines voting rights nationwide and preserves the legacy of the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, for millions of Americans, the right to vote protected by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things.

Let us honor their commitment and sacrifice by enshrining the legislative protections they fought for.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate, cherish, and honor the extraordinary life of Hughes Van Ellis, who was born in 1921 in the Greenwood District of Tulsa, Oklahoma--one of the flashpoints of the modern Civil Rights Movement.

He, alongside his sister Viola Fletcher, was one of the last surviving witnesses of the Tulsa Race Massacre.

At the time of his birth, the Greenwood District of Tulsa was a thriving community built up by its Black residents into a nationally renowned entrepreneurial center known as ``Black Wall Street.''

In 1921, white supremacy and racist violence were common throughout the United States and went largely unchecked by the justice system.

On the morning of May 30, 1921, Mr. Van Ellis and the other residents of Greenwood District had their world shattered when reports of an alleged and disputed incident between a young Black man and a young white woman gave the white community of Tulsa a pretext for violently attacking the prosperous Black community.

The Tulsa Tribune called for a lynching amidst a climate of white racial hostility and white resentment over Black economic success.

On May 31, 1921, a mob of armed white men descended upon Tulsa's Greenwood District and initiated the unchecked violence known today as the ``Tulsa Race Massacre.''

Tulsa municipal and county authorities failed to take action to protect the Black community, nor did they attempt to calm or contain the violence.

Law enforcement officials deputized many white men who were participants in the violence as their agents.

In just 24 hours, the white mob's violence led to the death of an estimated 300 Black residents, as well as over 800 injuries.

The white mob looted, damaged, burned, or otherwise destroyed approximately 40 square blocks of Black Wall Street in Greenwood District of Tulsa Oklahoma, which included an estimated 1256 homes of Black residents and virtually every other structure, including churches, schools, businesses, a hospital and a library.

Nearly 9,000 Black Tulsans were left homeless and suffered over $200 million dollars in losses.

In the wake of the Tulsa Race Massacre, the Governor of Oklahoma declared martial law and units of the Oklahoma National Guard participated in the mass arrests of nearly all of Greenwood's surviving men, women, and children, removing them from Greenwood and unlawfully detaining them in holding centers.

Oklahoma local and state governments dismissed and distorted claims surrounding the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre for decades and the event was effectively erased from collective memory and history.

The final injury to Black residents was that insurance companies refused to pay claims for the losses they suffered to the homes and businesses that had been looted or destroyed.

Mr. Van Ellis dedicated his life to ensuring that this atrocity would not be forgotten and to the pursuit of justice for survivors.

Through it all, his love of country shown through his service as a World War II veteran, fighting for our Nation's freedom.

When he returned home, he continued to serve as a solider in the fight for civil rights, truth, and justice.

He started a family with his wife, raising their seven children, while working as a sharecropper, mechanic, janitor, gardener, and a gas station attendant.

In 2021, Mr. Van Ellis bravely sat before the United States House Judiciary Committee and testified to the dangers of structural racism and inequality.

He drew attention to the abdication of responsibility by government and city officials to rebuild and repair the Greenwood community and testified to the government on the active blocking of recovery efforts by city officials.

Alongside fellow survivors, he demanded that the government not forget about what happened in Tulsa and that the survivors should receive reparations for the trauma they endured.

He was a vocal and staunch advocate for the enactment of H.R. 40, the Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans Act, to address injury caused to the descendants of the formerly enslaved.

He encouraged all people in the United States to reflect upon the history of the United States as an imperfect but committed journey to establish a more perfect union and to cherish and exercise the rights, privileges, and responsibilities guaranteed by the Constitution.

Above all, Hughes Van Ellis refused to sit by quietly as a piece of his life was wiped from public memory as well as the history books.

His staunch advocacy for justice and civil rights won over the hearts and minds of millions to his cause, passing on his determination to redress for the wrongs of the past.

Hughes Van Ellis is survived by his daughters Malee V. Craft and Muriel Ellis Watson, as well as his sister and fellow survivor Viola Ford Fletcher.

On behalf of the constituents of the 18th Congressional District of Texas, I take great pride in recognizing Hughes Van Ellis on a meaningful and prosperous life.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on H. Con. Res. 106, ``Expressing support for local law enforcement officers and condemning efforts to defend local law enforcement agencies.''

It is unfortunate that H. Con. Res. 106 is simply another hypocritical, partisan attack cloaked behind a message honoring local law enforcement during National Police Week.

During a time when we are coming together and supporting law enforcement, my Republican colleagues continue to offer divisive political talking points and largely meaningless bills that will neither protect law enforcement nor enhance public safety.

It is further disappointing and disingenuous that Republicans have consistently blamed the rise in violent crime on Democrats and have attempted to pin the ``defund the police'' rhetoric on Democrats-- labeling Democrats as the party of ``defund the police.''

This bill put forth by Republican colleagues, H. Con. Res. 106, endeavors to continue those efforts--repeating almost verbatim-- sentiments asserted in H. Con. Res. 40, which was introduced during National Police Week last year.

Through the American Rescue Plan, Democrats have provided $350 billion to the states that would allow our cities to keep law enforcement on the beat and communities safe from violence, the largest Federal investment in public safety in our history.

Police departments used that funding to establish training facilities, hire more officers, and raise salaries.

In the 117th Congress, House Democrats showed their support for law enforcement and the needs faced by departments across the country by passing priority policing bills--including:

Extending death benefits to law enforcement officers with PTSD;

Providing funding to law enforcement and other first responders for interacting with people with TBIs and PTSD;

Authorizing $300 million in grants for law enforcement agencies with fewer than 125 officers;

Making significant investments in de-escalation training; and

Providing $100 million per year in grants to solve cold-case violent crimes--all over Republican objections.

Sadly, however, this resolution is another missed opportunity to support and honor law enforcement officers across the country, without engaging in nonsensical and damaging partisanship.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of S. 546, the ``Recruit and Retain Act''.

As a member of the Law Enforcement Caucus and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Surveillance, I am pleased to support this bill.

This legislation will help law enforcement agencies in tangible ways by providing them with tools to help address the high rates of attrition that have plagued these agencies for years.

Our Nation's law enforcement agencies are facing an unprecedented staffing crisis.

Hiring efforts have been unable to keep pace with the high rates of attrition that we are seeing in police departments from coast to coast, and everywhere in between.

According to a report last year by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Office of Community Oriented Policing, factors such as community frustration with the policing profession, and concerns about officer safety and well-being, have contributed to this staffing crisis.

It is unsurprising, then, that a 2023 survey of police departments showed resignations continuing to increase every year since 2019, with responding agencies reporting nearly 50 percent more resignations in 2022 than in 2019.

In my district in Houston, Texas, the problem goes back even further.

We recently learned that staffing shortages resulted in over 264,000 cases--including 4,000 sexual assault cases--were never submitted for investigation, due to staffing shortages.

We cannot allow this to continue.

Our communities deserve more.

Victims deserve more.

The Recruit and Retain Act will attempt to remedy this problem by authorizing law enforcement agencies to use COPS grants to reduce the numerous fees that law enforcement applicants must pay.

We will not get qualified men and women in uniform if they cannot afford to even apply to a police department.

The Recruit and Retain Act also will encourage voluntary partnerships between agencies and local elementary schools, secondary schools, and institutions of higher learning, including historically black colleges and universities, for students interested in careers in law enforcement.

Partnership activities will include dedicated programming for students; work-based learning opportunities; mentoring; community liaisons; career and jobs fairs; job shadowing; and internships.

These activities will help law enforcement agencies recruit talented applicants who reflect and respect the communities they serve.

This, in turn, will help earn back the trust of those communities-- making all of us safer.

I would prefer for this bill to include the minimum qualification and training standards that the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would require.

I also think we must do more to address the mental health challenges that officers inevitably face, due to the harrowing nature of their work.

We cannot expect qualified officers to remain in such a dangerous profession if we do not give them the resources they need to address the toll that police work takes on them.

We cannot wait any longer to address the law enforcement staffing crisis.

We must act now to help police departments across the country recruit and retain the officers they need to keep our communities safe.

I invite my colleagues across the aisle to join me in this effort to support local and state law enforcement.

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 7343, the ``Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Cops Act.''

As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Crime Subcommittee and as Senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am deeply disappointed in this harmful and misguided bill.

This overly broad legislation would result in extremely harsh and unintended consequences, subjecting people to mandatory immigration detention for merely being arrested for, and never charged or convicted of a crime.

It does not actually solve any problems with the immigration system or the border.

This bill will, however, callously, and carelessly increases the scope of those subject to mandatory immigration detention to cover many undocumented immigrants, including those in a lawful status such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or Temporary Protected Status (TPS), if they are arrested for assault of a law enforcement officer or first responder.

In particular, it will make it so that someone who is merely arrested for or charged with an assault of a law enforcement officer or first responder, even if they never committed that crime or hurt anyone, is now subject to mandatory immigration detention.

It is so broad and overinclusive that it would lead to truly absurd results and to the detention and removal of people who had no intention of ever committing a crime.

Indeed, consider a situation where an immigrant is wrongfully arrested for assault due to mistaken identity.

Under this bill, that individual would now be subject to mandatory detention, even though they were arrested by mistake and potentially never even charged with a crime.

Wrongful arrests are not far-fetched scenarios.

In fact, the main reason this bill was introduced was because Republicans wanted to exploit an incident involving recently arrived migrants allegedly assaulting law enforcement in Times Square.

One specific image of an arrested migrant flipping off cameras after his arraignment set off a firestorm among Republicans.

However, in March, ten weeks after the incident, charges against that specific individual were dropped.

It turns out he was wrongfully arrested and charged. He was not even at the scene of the incident.

This is a perfect example as to why this bill is absurd--if it was in effect, this individual, despite his innocence, would have been subject to mandatory detention.

Additionally, many jurisdictions have a broad definition of assault that are so broad, they can include conduct as minor as throwing a parking ticket at a ticketing officer.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem.

No one in this caucus condones serious assaults against law enforcement officers.

People who admit to or are convicted of serious assault offenses against law enforcement officers are already subject to mandatory detention under our laws. This bill would not change that fact.

Instead, this bill will subject more people to mandatory detention at a time when Republicans refuse to give the Department of Homeland Security the resources it needs.

It should also be noted that Congress has never appropriated, and no administration has ever requested, sufficient resources to detain all noncitizens who fall under the ``mandatory detention'' categories.

Even former President Trump never tried to detain all migrants subject to mandatory detention.

If this bill were to become law, as written, it would simply lead to absurd consequences.

Consequences that do nothing to resolve the problems that Republicans claim they are seeking to resolve.

Time and again, Republicans have refused to support additional resources and personnel for the border.

In 2021, all but six current House Republicans voted against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, which provided additional funding to ports of entry to combat smuggling of people and drugs.

All but two current House Republicans voted against providing robust funding for border security operations in the FY2023 appropriations omnibus legislation.

That bill provided more than $17 billion to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including funding for an additional 300 Border Patrol agents.

The omnibus also included $60 million to hire 125 CBP officers and $70 million for nonintrusive inspection technology to detect narcotics and firearms at ports of entry.

In October of 2023, the Biden administration sent Congress a supplemental funding request, which included an additional $13.6 billion for border security.

House Republicans refuse to schedule a vote on this funding request, which would provide the Biden administration the resources it needs to secure the border and provide additional support for communities receiving migrants.

More specifically, this supplemental funding would pay for an additional 1,300 Border Patrol agents; 375 immigration judges and 1,600 asylum officers to speed up processing of asylum claims; 1,000 CBP officers with a focus on countering fentanyl; new detection technology for ports of entry; additional investigative capabilities to combat fentanyl trafficking; and $1.4 billion more in grants to help communities receiving migrants, among other investments.

By forcing a vote on this bill, Republicans are really showing they have no real solutions to address the border.

I urge my colleagues to not take the bait.

It should also be stated that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born individuals.

There are currently 45 million foreign-born people in the United States.

In any large group, there are going to be some people who do bad things.

These people do not represent the group as a whole.

Unfortunately, Republicans and Fox News want to use any crime committed by an immigrant to fearmonger and scapegoat migrants for everything that is wrong in the country.

But here are the facts: Higher immigration is associated with lower crime rates.

According to a 2015 study by the American Immigration Council, between 1990 and 2013, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population grew from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent and the number of unauthorized immigrants more than tripled from 3.5 million to 11.2 million.

During the same period, FBI data indicates that the violent crime rate declined 48 percent--which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder.

Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41 percent, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.

An NBC News review of available 2024 crime data from the cities targeted by Texas's ``Operation Lone Star,'' which buses or flies migrants from the border to major cities in the interior--shows overall crime levels dropping in those cities that have received the most migrants.

Overall crime is down year after year in Philadelphia, Chicago, Denver, New York, and Los Angeles.

With these facts, we can see that this bill is sadly another opportunity for my Republican colleagues to score cheap political points on a bill that has no chance to become law while trying to target and scapegoat migrants as criminals.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H. Res. 1210, ``Condemning the Biden border crisis and the tremendous burdens law enforcement officers face as a result''.

As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Crime Subcommittee and as Senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am deeply disappointed in this harmful and misguided bill.

This resolution is more of the same false and misleading narrative we have become accustomed from House Republicans this Congress.

This resolution, however, goes further and also claims that ``Democrat elected officials prioritize illegal alien criminals over citizens and legal residents of the United States.''

This is slanderous, wrong, and offensive language that should draw universal condemnation from Democrats.

Let us remember how we got here.

Last May, House Republicans passed their inhumane, unworkable border bill, H.R. 2, over bipartisan opposition.

They claimed this bill was the only way to secure the border.

That bill has since failed twice to pass the Senate, rejected both times on a bipartisan basis.

Former President Trump instructed Republicans to reject a bipartisan border compromise that Minority Leader McConnell called the strongest border bill in 30 years.

Republicans have said out loud they want to preserve the political issue for the election year.

The best way to secure the border is to expand lawful pathways and adequately fund the immigration system.

And yet, we have not updated our legal immigration system in over 30 years.

The more broken the legal immigration system is, the more people will try to come to the border as the only means of entry.

We need more asylum officers and immigration judges to ensure people have their day in court, in a fair and expeditious manner.

However, there has been a refusal to actually solve the problem.

This resolution accuses of Democrats of not supporting law enforcement when time and again, Republicans have refused to take yes for an answer and address the issues at the border.

In addition to rejecting the bipartisan Senate border bill, Republicans have consistently refused to support providing additional resources and personnel for the border.

In 2021, all but six current House Republicans voted against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, which provided additional funding to ports of entry to combat smuggling of people and drugs.

All but two current House Republicans voted against providing funding for border security operations in the FY2023 appropriations omnibus legislation.

That bill provided more than $17 billion to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including funding for an additional 300 Border Patrol agents.

The omnibus also included $60 million to hire 125 CBP officers and $70 million for nonintrusive inspection technology to detect narcotics and firearms at ports of entry.

In October of 2023, the Biden administration sent Congress a supplemental funding request, which included $13.6 billion for border security.

House Republicans refuse to schedule a vote on this funding request, which would provide the Biden administration the resources it needs to secure the border and provide additional support for communities receiving migrants.

More specifically, this supplemental funding would pay for an additional 1,300 Border Patrol agents; 375 immigration judges, and 1,600 asylum officers to speed up processing of asylum claims; 1,000 CBP officers with a focus on countering fentanyl; new detection technology for ports of entry; additional investigative capabilities to combat fentanyl trafficking; and $1.4 billion more in grants to help communities receiving migrants, among other investments.

By forcing a vote on this resolution, Republicans are showing they have no real solutions to address the border.

I urge Members to not take the bait.

Rather, let us look at the facts.

In the Fiscal Year 24 appropriations bill, Congress appropriated over $3.4 billion for DHS to maintain and use 41,500 detention beds.

These are levels of detention similar to those during under the Trump administration.

Despite the claims of this resolution, the Biden administration has significantly expanded expedited removal and in ways that many in our caucus worry violates due process.

Since the end of Title 42 last year, the Biden administration has removed or returned over 720,000 individuals, including over 109,000 individual members of family units, including children.

This is more than the number of people removed in ALL of fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration, and more removals and returns than every full fiscal year since 2011.

We also know that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates that native-born individuals.

There are currently 45 million foreign-born people in the United States.

In any large group, there are going to be some people who do bad things.

These people do not represent the group as a whole.

Unfortunately, Republicans and this resolution, want to use any crime committed by an immigrant to fearmonger and scapegoat migrants for everything that is wrong in the country.

But here are the facts: Higher immigration is associated with lower crime rates.

According to a 2015 study by the American Immigration Council, between 1990 and 2013, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population grew from 7.9 percent to 13.1 percent and the number of unauthorized immigrants more than tripled from 3.5 million to 11.2 million.

During the same period, FBI data indicates that the violent crime rate declined 48 percent--which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder.

An NBC News review of available 2024 crime data from the cities targeted by Texas's ``Operation Lone Star,'' which buses or flies migrants from the border to major cities in the interior--shows overall crime levels dropping in those cities that have received the most migrants.

Overall crime is down year after year in Philadelphia, Chicago, Denver, New York, and Los Angeles.

With these facts, we can see that this bill is sadly another opportunity for my Republican colleagues to score cheap political points on a bill that has no chance to become law while trying to target and scapegoat migrants as criminals.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 7581, the ``Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act.''

As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Crime Subcommittee and as Senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am deeply disappointed in this harmful and misguided bill.

Sadly, nothing in this bill makes a single officer safer or invests a single dollar in officer wellness.

By contrast, last Congress, Democrats passed the Protecting America's First Responders Act, the Public Safety Officer Support Act, the Confidentiality Opportunities for Peer Support (COPS) Counseling Act, and the Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act.

But this Congress, House Republicans are refusing to follow suit, instead offering this bill that sounds helpful, but is not.

This legislation falls far short of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which would invest in better data collection and reporting by requiring law enforcement agencies to report uses of force by or against law enforcement officers as a condition of the receipt of certain grants.

My bill, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would actually provide us with new data because it would condition the receipt of certain grants on the reporting of incidents involving law enforcement officers and it would support better data collection and reporting through additional grants to reporting agencies.

The reporting provisions of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act include officer shootings by civilians, officer deaths, deaths of civilians in custody, and uses of deadly force against civilians.

In focusing only on attacks against officers, this bill turns a blind eye to uses of force by law enforcement against civilians, whether justified or not.

House Republicans are again refusing to work with police and the organizations that represent them to pass meaningful legislation.

At least seven bipartisan law enforcement bills, many led by Republicans, have been passed by the Democratic-led Senate and are awaiting consideration in the House.

These are bills that would actually improve the welfare of law enforcement officers and are priorities for the groups who represent them.

But, so far, House Republicans have only advanced one of these bills.

While House Republicans continue to prioritize messaging over meaningful legislation, Democrats will continue to work with law enforcement organizations on substantive proposals--proposals we will pursue when we take back the House.

With these facts, we can see that this bill is sadly another opportunity for my Republican colleagues to score cheap political points on a

bill that has no chance to become law while trying to target and scapegoat migrants as criminals.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Law Enforcement Caucus and a senior member of the Committees on Judiciary and Homeland Security, and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, I rise to commemorate National Police Week.

May 15 is designated as Peace Officers Memorial Day, which falls within National Police Week since 1962 by President John F. Kennedy.

National Police Week pays homage to those who lost their lives in the line of duty, with a Memorial Service that began in 1982 to list in remembrance and commemoration all the names of those we have lost.

Sadly in 2023, Texas lost 11 law enforcement individuals in the line of duty, and in 2024 there have been 5 deaths.

To date, a total of 2,247 Texas law enforcement individuals and 30 K9s overall have been killed in the line of duty in the State of Texas.

Fallen Officers in Texas--2023

Sergeant Stephen Gibson, Somervell County Sheriff's Office, TX, EOW: Wednesday, December 13, 2023, Cause of Death: Automobile crash.

Correctional Officer III Jovian Motley, Texas Department of Criminal Justice--Correctional Institutions Division, TX, EOW: Monday, November 13, 2023, Cause of Death: Unidentified.

Senior Police Officer Jorge Pastore, Austin Police Department, TX, EOW: Saturday, November 11, 2023, Cause of Death: Gunfire.

Sergeant Jon Arden Jenson, Fort Worth Police Department, TX, EOW: Saturday, October 28, 2023, Cause of Death: COVID-19.

Lieutenant Milton Resendez, San Benito Police Department, TX, EOW: Tuesday, October 17, 2023, Cause of Death: Gunfire.

Police Officer Darrin McMichael, Arlington Police Department, TX, EOW: Thursday, September 21, 2023, Cause of Death: Struck by vehicle.

Deputy Sheriff Matthew Pierson, Shelby County Sheriff's Office, TX, EOW: Tuesday, August 29, 2023, Cause of Death: Automobile crash.

Officer Bryan Holley, Hudson Independent School District Police Department, TX, EOW: Friday, August 18, 2023, Cause of Death: Duty related illness.

Deputy Sheriff David Bosecker, Eastland County Sheriff's Office, TX, EOW: Friday, July 21, 2023, Cause of Death: Gunfire.

Sergeant Joshua Lee Clouse, Cameron Police Department, TX, EOW: Thursday, May 11, 2023, Cause of Death: Gunfire.

Deputy Sheriff Jason Stuart Jones, Tarrant County Sheriff's Office, TX, EOW: Tuesday, April 11, 2023, Cause of Death: COVID-19.

Fallen Officers in Texas--2024

Police Officer Kyle Hicks, Corpus Christi Police Department, TX, EOW: Wednesday, April 24, 2024, Cause of Death: Gunfire.

Investigator John Hampton Coddou, III, Harris County Sheriff's Office, TX, EOW: Tuesday, April 23, 2024, Cause of Death: Struck by vehicle.

Border Patrol Agent Christopher Luna, United States Department of Homeland Security--Customs and Border Protection--United States Border Patrol, U.S., EOW: Friday, March 8, 2024, Cause of Death: Aircraft accident, Location: Texas.

Deputy Sheriff Charles Rivette, Montgomery County Sheriff's Office, TX, EOW: Wednesday, February 21, 2024, Cause of Death: Automobile crash.

Deputy Sheriff Rondald Bates, Harris County Sheriff's Office, TX, EOW: Saturday, February 10, 2024, Cause of Death: Automobile crash.

It is important that we take this opportunity to honor America's law enforcement community and recognize the sacrifices that these brave officers have made in our communities.

This should be a time of unity and a rededication of our commitment to law enforcement officers--to make every effort to make their work safer and promote the importance of law enforcement as public servants.

Unfortunately, Republicans talk about supporting law enforcement but have sought to defund law enforcement and undermine public trust in police.

Law enforcement is on the front line of fighting crime in communities across the Nation.

All too often law enforcement officers are taken by the violence we expect them to prevent. And increasingly, officers and agents are losing their lives to gun-related violence--oftentimes with handguns.

These brave men and women risk their lives to keep the peace and keep us safe, but they are too often taken by the violence they are working to prevent.

Between 2012 and 2021, 504 police officers in the United States were killed in the line of duty. Of those, 90 percent--or 456 officers--were killed by a firearm.

A study by the Center for American Progress found that between 2017 and 2021, the rate of police officers fatally shot in states with the weakest gun laws was 152% higher than in state with stronger gun laws.

Weak gun laws make everyone less safe. From 2000 to 2022, the average murder rate in States that reliably vote Republican in presidential elections (``Red States'') was 24 percent higher than the average murder rate in States that reliably vote Democratic.

In fact, so-called Red States' murder rates are ``significantly higher'' than reliably Democratic-voting States, ``even when [researchers] removed the county with the largest city in Trump-voting states (and kept them in for Biden-voting states).''

Weakening requirements to carry a concealed firearm increases gun violence and violent crime.

Every state allows individuals to carry concealed weapons in public, but fewer than half of them require a permit.

Specifically, by the start of 2023, 26 states allowed individuals to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public without first undergoing a background check, obtaining a license, or receiving any firearm training.

It is important to note that gun-involved homicide rates are higher in states with more permissive concealed carry laws.

Permitless carry laws, like those in Texas, pushed by Republican state legislatures put law enforcement officers at risk.

When Indiana was considering a permitless carry bill in 2022, Patrick Flannelly, Vice President of the Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police warned, ``What we have done now is we've taken away the one tool that police officers had out on the street to be able to act quickly and efficiently for not only their personal safety but for the safety of our communities.''

Law enforcement across the country similarly have warned that permitless concealed carry laws put officers at risk.

In fact, in 2021, almost 61 of 84 law enforcement officers who died from felonious assaults were killed by firearms.

Reliably Republican-voting states that have permissive gun laws, specifically permitless carry laws, are putting law enforcement officers' lives on the line by sending them into communities that are increasingly flush with firearms.

Although Republicans claim they support law enforcement, Democrats have implemented policies and reforms that will keep law enforcement and the communities they serve safer and more secure--often over Republican objections.

In June 2021, the Biden Administration unveiled its Comprehensive Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gun Crime and Ensure Public Safety. Overall, the strategy sought to:

stem the flow of firearms used to commit violence, including by holding rogue firearms dealers accountable for violating federal laws;

support local law enforcement with federal tools and resources to help address summer violent crime;

invest in evidence-based community violence interventions;

expand summer programming, employment opportunities, and other services and supports for teenagers and young adults; and

help formerly incarcerated individuals successfully reenter their communities.

On June 25, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA).

The BSCA was passed in the wake of the shooting in Uvalde, Texas, the state's deadliest school shooting, where 19 children and two teachers were killed.

Key provisions of the BSCA include: Enhanced background checks requiring the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to conduct an enhanced review of purchasers under the age of 21 to determine whether juvenile records disqualify that individual from purchasing a firearm.

NICS is given 10 days to complete the investigation, and it unsets after 10 years.

State incentives for ``red flag'' laws: Provides $750 million over five years that will go to states for ``crisis intervention programs'' including red flag laws, mental health courts, drug courts, veterans' courts, and extreme risk protection orders.

$250 million in funding for community-based violence prevention initiatives

$300 million in school safety funding through the STOP School Violence Act to institute safety measures in and around schools, support school violence prevention efforts and

provide training to school personnel and students.

Codification of the SchoolSafety.gov clearinghouse, which provides evidence-based resources to improve school safety and prohibits use of funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to train or equip any person with dangerous weapons in schools.

I also think we must do more to address the mental health challenges that officers inevitably face, due to the harrowing nature of their work.

We cannot expect qualified officers to remain in such a dangerous profession if we do not give them the resources, they need to address the toll that police work takes on them.

It is time we come together and truly support law enforcement through legislative efforts that will provide resources and tools to address the myriad of issues facing law enforcement, rather than politicizing what has traditionally been a bipartisan effort.

And so, during this special week and every day in the work I do here in Congress, I am proud to support and recognize law enforcement officers for the tremendous work they do each day, and to uplift in special reverence the names of all those men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for us and the Nation.

It is equally just as important to acknowledge those officers we have lost--our fallen heroes who have given their last full measure of devotion to the communities they swore to protect and serve--some who gave their lives as far back as 1857.

How excellent it is that the stories of these courageous individuals have been brought to light and were not left untold.

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 8146, the ``Police Our Border Act''.

As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Crime Subcommittee and as Senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am deeply disappointed in this harmful and misguided bill. Yet again, House Republicans are wasting time with another bill that does nothing to solve any issues at the border.

Instead of trying to pass thoughtful and bipartisan legislation to address the problems in our immigration system, they have once again brought forward a bill that has no chance of becoming law and accomplishes absolutely nothing.

This legislation is purportedly a reporting bill that simply requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress on the impact the number of migrants coming to the border is having on law enforcement officers at the Federal, State, local, and Tribal level.

Upon closer inspection however, this bill seeks to codify Republican attacks on the President's immigration policies and the fearmongering and demonization of immigrants.

For example, the bill requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress on the impact the ``Biden border crisis'' is having on law enforcement officers at the Federal, State, local, and Tribal level.

Additionally, the report must include information on the exposure of law enforcement officers to fentanyl as a result of encounters with illegal aliens.''

Both of these reporting requirements contain politically motivated rhetoric disguised as fact.

This bill is also very poorly drafted.

Despite the fact the entire bill is focused on reporting requirements related to the ``Biden border crisis,'' this term is not defined in the legislation.

The failure to define this key term provides little guidance to the Attorney General on the required report, and it is further evidence that this bill is more about messaging than congressional oversight of the executive branch.

Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security would almost certainly be much better situated to assess issues related to border security.

However, it appears Republicans chose to request this bill's report from the Attorney General to ensure the Judiciary Committee would have jurisdiction over this bill, so they

would have an immigration-related bill to offer for ``Police Week.''

Instead of trying to pass thoughtful and bipartisan legislation to address the problems in our immigration system, this bill fails in such endeavor and offers no viable action.

It is also important to state the fact that the border is not open.

Let us look at the facts.

In the Fiscal Year 24 appropriations bill, Congress appropriated over $3.4 billion for DHS to maintain and use 41,500 detention beds.

These are levels of detention similar to those during under the Trump administration.

Despite the claims of this bill, the Biden administration has significantly expanded expedited removal, and in ways that many in our caucus worry violates due process.''

Since the end of Title 42 last year, the Biden administration has removed or returned over 660,000 individuals, including over 102,000 individual members of family units, including children.

This is more than the number of people removed or returned in any year under the Trump administration.

Yet, time and again, Republicans have refused to take yes for an answer.

In addition to rejecting the bipartisan Senate border bill, Republicans have consistently refused to support providing additional resources and personnel for the border.

In 2021, all but six current House Republicans voted against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, which provided additional funding to ports of entry to combat smuggling of people and drugs.

All but two current House Republicans voted against providing robust funding for border security operations in the FY2023 appropriations omnibus legislation.

That bill provided more than $17 billion to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), including funding for an additional 300 Border Patrol agents.

The omnibus also included $60 million to hire 125 CBP officers and $70 million for nonintrusive inspection technology to detect narcotics and firearms at ports of entry.

In October of 2023, the Biden administration sent Congress a supplemental funding request, which included an additional $13.6 billion for border security.

My Republican colleagues have refused to schedule a vote on this funding request, which would provide the Biden administration the resources it needs to secure the border and provide additional support for communities receiving migrants.

More specifically, this supplemental funding would pay for an additional 1,300 Border Patrol agents; 375 immigration judges and 1,600 asylum officers to speed up processing of asylum claims; 1,000 CBP officers with a focus on countering fentanyl; new detection technology for ports of entry; additional investigative capabilities to combat fentanyl trafficking; and $1.4 billion more in grants to help communities receiving migrants, among other investments.

By forcing a vote on this bill, Republicans are showing they have no real solutions to address the border.

I urge Members to not take the bait, and to vote no on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 354, the LEOSA Reform Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H. Res. 1213, ``A resolution regarding violence against law enforcement officers''.

Sadly, H. Res. 1213 is another hypocritical, partisan attack cloaked behind a message honoring local law enforcement during National Police Week.

The resolution is full of misinformation, baseless and dangerous claims, and political rhetoric that overwhelms its intended purpose and has no place in what should be an opportunity to bring Congress together in solemn reflection.

My Republican colleagues have consistently tried to blame the rise in violent crime on Democrats and locally-elected District Attorneys and with this resolution have attempted once again to label Democrats as the party of ``defund the police.''

The resolution asserts without evidence that calls to defund the police are tied to an increase in violence against law enforcement officers and further implies that locally adopted progressive criminal justice reform policies have contributed to the ``negative environment'' in which law enforcement officers work.

The Resolution fails to acknowledge that the number of officers killed in the line of duty decreased substantially each year from 586 in 2021 to 137 in 2023.

The resolution advances baseless political attacks against policies aimed at addressing decades of mass incarceration and overcriminalization, attempting to link policies such as decreased criminal penalties and no-cash bail systems with an increase in aggression and violence toward law enforcement.

The Resolution claims that House members are responsible for exemplifying a respect for the rule of law and for law enforcement but overlooks hypocritical anti-police Republican actions:

The failure of Republicans to unanimously vote to award the Congressional Gold Medal to all police officers who responded to the violent January 6th attack on the Capitol and efforts like H. Con. Res. 106 to marginalize federal law enforcement officers.

Republican efforts to defund law enforcement, whether by opposing grant funding that supports state and local agencies, or by calling to abolish federal agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

For these reasons I must oppose this fatally flawed resolution--and yet another missed opportunity to support and honor law enforcement personnel across the country and those who lost their lives in the line of duty, without engaging in partisanship on this solemn occasion.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, I want to thank my colleagues for hosting this Congressional Black Caucus Special Order to discuss the families of police violence, their experiences, and the CBC's commitment to enhancing public safety in this nation.

The horrifying killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, by a Minneapolis police officer shocked and awakened the moral consciousness of the nation.

The world witnessed the brutal and traumatizing nine minutes where George Floyd begged for his life--uttering his last words ``I can't breathe''--as an officer, ignoring the pleas of George and all those witnessing his death, refused to lift his knee off the neck of George suffocating him and ending his life.

``I can't breathe'' continues to echo around the world alongside our cries for justice, change, and protection from and under the law.

We are horrified by the continued massacre of Black bodies in this country for merely existing.

Our homes, our cars, and our neighborhoods continue to be invaded with violence at the hands of racist ideologies that breed fear into our institutions and threaten our lives.

There have been countless murders of Black Americans by the state.

Just last week, Roger Fortson, a 23-year-old Black U.S. airman was shot and killed in his own home by a Florida deputy.

This vicious cycle must end.

There are countless young Black men and women who have had their lives tragically cut short by law enforcement officers who took their lives in their hands.

This year also marks one year since Tyre Nichols was brutally beaten by five Memphis police officers to the point of being unrecognizable.

The nation was shocked but not surprised by his murder, comparing it to the police beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles 32 years prior.

And of course, this isn't a new phenomenon of racist abuses of power.

Indeed, the history goes back much further, past Amadou Diallo in New York City, past the Central Park Five, past Emmitt Till, past the racist abuse of law enforcement power during the struggle for civil rights and equal treatment.

But we also must remember that are countless lives and stories that did not make headlines. Stories of victims who never received justice and family members who never received closure.

Just this year alone, police have killed 93 Black people in the U.S.--93 in less than 5 months.

These are not isolated killings, as they are occurring all across the United States, in 28 states documented this year by Mapping Police Violence.

According to a recent ABC poll, 39 percent of Americans are confident that the police in this country are adequately trained to avoid the use of excessive force.

For the first time in the nine-year history of this question, just under half of white Americans say they are confident about police avoiding excessive force or racial bias. About two-thirds of Hispanic Americans lack confidence in police on both excessive force and racial bias.

Americans are 41 percent confident in police treating Black and white people equally.

Despite an uptick in legislation and police reform since June 2020, there has been a steady increase in police killings.

In 2020, 1,152 people were killed at the hands of the police, in a year where much of the population was stuck at home during a pandemic. In 2021, police killed 1,145 people.

In 2022, murders by the U.S. police force reached a record high. At least 1,176 people were killed, an average of 3 murders per day, making 2022 one of the deadliest years on record.

The murders are never ending.

Bianca Austin, Breonna Taylor's aunt said that ``there was a movement and uproar across the globe, and we're still having more killings? What are we doing wrong? It's so disheartening''.

It is so true. It seems like the United States is sliding backwards. We had a grandiose movement, where people from all over came together to say this is wrong, yet it does not seem like we have progressed.

How can we make America better for Black men and women? For American Natives? For the LGBT community? For immigrants? For each other?

We are all deserving of better, but we must work together to do better.

The death of Tyre Nichols and Roger Fortson has created serious urgency for the re-introduction of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. The legislation was the product of intense bipartisan negotiations with civil rights advocates, law enforcement stakeholders and the Department of Justice.

The legislation is truly an omnibus product and reflects contributions from across the Congressional Black Caucus, including bills like the PRIDE Act; the PEACE Act; the End Racial Profiling Act; and the Eric Garner Excessive Use of Force Prevention Act.

The House has twice passed the George Floyd Act, with the support of 219 Democrats in 117th Congress. It is critical that we introduce the legislation with overwhelming support this Congress. Last Congress, the bill gained 199 cosponsors.

Last Congress the Senate failed to introduce the George Floyd Act, largely because Senate Republicans failed to engage in good faith negotiations. The current high watermark for Senate cosponsorship is 37 Democrats in

the 116th Congress. It is important that Senate Democrats timely introduce the George Floyd bill with significant cosponsorship and not repeat efforts that stymied action on the legislation.

Two years after the murder of George Floyd, in May 2022, the Biden administration released a police reform executive order. Key reforms in President Joe Biden's executive order include:

Improving data collection. All federal law enforcement agencies will contribute to a National Law Enforcement Accountability Database regarding instances of police misconduct as well as submit information to the FBI related to use-of-force incidents. The U.S. attorney general will review the status of and compliance with federal reporting requirements. This also includes the issuance of guidance to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies on best practices for contributing their data to federal systems.

Revising use-of-force standards. All federal law enforcement agencies will revise their use-of-force policies to ensure they meet or exceed the standards included in the recently revised policy for the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice's policy provides that use of force is permitted only when ``no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist.'' All federal law enforcement use-of-force policies will also include de-escalation provisions as well as an affirmative duty to intervene to stop excessive use of force and render medical aid.

Limiting the use of no-knock entries. Building upon the U.S. Department of Justice's September 2021 policy, all federal law enforcement agencies will be prohibited from the use of no-knock entries unless an agent has reasonable grounds to believe that knocking and announcing the agent's presence would create an imminent threat of physical violence to the officer and/or another person.

Limiting the militarization of law enforcement. Federal agencies are restricted from transferring and selling additional types of military equipment to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies, expanding the Obama-era restriction on this practice.

Credentialing of police agencies. The attorney general will develop and implement a process by which state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies will seek accreditation by an independent entity.

Leveraging federal grants. Federal discretionary grants will be awarded to state, local, and tribal governments to encourage compliance with the executive order. This will include an assessment of what discretionary grants will be limited to the law enforcement agencies that achieve accreditation.

Improving crisis response to include alternatives. Guidance will be issued and resources identified to support state, local, tribal, and territorial officials as they implement a range of alternative first- responder models to meet the needs of people experiencing a behavioral or mental health crises or persons who have disabilities. This includes civilian community responder models being developed in jurisdictions across the country that do not include police officers.

The executive order also contains important provisions that improve investigations into deaths in police custody; strengthen the effectiveness of pattern-of-practice investigations; ban choke holds and carotid restraints except in certain circumstances where use of deadly force is authorized; enhance recruitment, training, and retention practices; ensure the use of body-worn cameras by federal law enforcement officers; and advance key criminal justice reform and reentry measures.

Advocated have also urged that Congress do its part by passing comprehensive police reform legislation that creates meaningful accountability and restores trust between police and the communities they serve by eliminating qualified immunity and strengthening civil rights protections.

Legislative reforms will follow the pattern of the George Floyd Justice in Poling Act: amending 18 U.S.C. Section 242, which defines the circumstance when a government official can be criminally responsible for violating someone's civil rights. (Section 242 does not specifically define prohibited conduct and has historically been interpreted too narrowly, failing to hold police officers accountable for a wide range of misconduct.)

Legislative action is also needed to reform/eliminate the judicial doctrine of qualified immunity that drastically reduces the legal liability of police officers. Qualified immunity limits the circumstances in which an individual can sue a police officer for violating their civil rights only to situations where the behavior violates ``clearly established law.'' This strict legal standard curtails accountability in policing to such a degree that officers face few repercussions--even when their conduct violates the Constitution.

While it is broadly recognized within the police reform movement that changes to the doctrine of qualified immunity and Section 242 are needed, Congress will need to pass legislation for these changes to become law.

As I have stated many times, direct action is vitally important but to be effective it must be accompanied by political, legislative, and governmental action, which is necessary because the strength and foundation of democratic government rests upon the consent and confidence of the governed.

Effective enforcement of the law and administration of justice requires the confidence of the community that the law will be enforced impartially and that all persons are treated equally without regard to race or ethnicity or religion or national origin.

As the great jurist Judge Learned Hand said: ``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shalt not ration justice.''

Equal justice is the proud promise America makes to all persons; the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act will help make that promise a lived reality for African Americans, who have not ever known it to be true in the area of community-police relations.

And when Black Lives Matter, then and only then can it truthfully be said that all lives matter.