Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus to honor Caribbean American Heritage Month and to express my appreciation to the multiples of talent in the Caribbean-American community.

Over the last decade, there have been approximately 4.5 million members of the Caribbean-American community. Of course, two of those who I am most proud of are my late grandmother and grandfather, Mr. and Mrs. Jackson, who migrated from Jamaica, West Indies.

My grandfather worked on the Panama Canal. What an emotional experience to go to the Panama Canal and see his name, Alfred Jackson, listed with those who have worked on the canal.

I also had the privilege of attending the funeral of one of Jamaica's iconic Prime Ministers, Prime Minister Manley, who is beloved around the nation.

Let me salute the Caribbean-American community in Houston, Texas, rich and inviting with their wonderful culture, cuisine, and, yes, the brilliance that they serve in public service, medicine, education, and business.

This is a great moment to be able to celebrate the richness of our diversity in this country. I can assure you, we have often said that we are a melting pot, but really, we are a mosaic. The pieces fit together where all of us are distinguished but yet part of America--part of America's democracy, part of America's work ethic, and part of America's freedom.

I salute my Caribbean-American friends and kinship. God bless you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2792, the Small Entity Update Act.

H.R. 2792 would require the Securities and Exchange Commission to carry out a study and rulemaking on the definition of the term ``small entity'' for purposes of the securities laws, and other purposes.

Agencies are required to consider the impact of their rules on small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Under the bill, the SEC must provide specific and detailed recommendations to Congress on how the SEC can revise the definition of small entity to (1) align with specified statutory goals, including reducing unnecessary burdens on small entities; and (2) to expand the number of entities covered.

Currently, the term ``small entity'' includes any definition established by the SEC of the term ``small business'', ``small organization'', or ``small governmental jurisdiction'', with respect to the activities of the Commission.

This bill would direct the SEC to modernize the criteria it uses to define a ``small entity'' to reflect the growth of the U.S. economy and the evolution of the capital markets since the last time the small entity definition was addressed.

H.R. 2792 requests the study occur no later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, and once every 5 years after.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates implementation of this bill would cost about $2 million over the 2023-2028 period.

However, since the SEC is authorized to collect fees each year to offset its annual appropriation, CBO expects that the net effect on discretionary spending over the 2023-2028 period would be negligible, assuming appropriation actions consistent with that authority.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2795, the Enhancing Multi-Class Share Disclosures Act.

H.R. 2795 would amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require issuers with a multi-class stock structure to make certain disclosures in any proxy or consent solicitation material, and for other purposes.

A multi-class share structure occurs when a company issues two or more classes of shares that have different voting rights.

Under the bill, the issuer must disclose certain information about each director, director nominee, named executive officer, and each beneficial owner of securities with 5% or more of the total combined voting power of all classes of securities entitled to vote in the election of directors.

Specifically, the issuer must disclose (1) the number of shares of all classes of securities entitled to vote in the election of directors beneficially owned by such person, and (2) the amount of voting power held by such person.

The Enhancing Multi-Class Share Disclosures Act is both timely and necessary to close documented gaps in transparency around multi-class governance structures.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2796 the Promoting Opportunities for Non-Traditional Capital Formation Act, which expands the functions of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation.

Additionally, this bill amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation to provide educational resources and host events to promote capital raising options for traditionally underrepresented small businesses, and for other purposes.

Specifically, the office must provide educational resources and host events to promote capital-raising options for underrepresented small businesses and businesses in rural areas.

Furthermore, the office must meet annually with representatives of state securities commissions to discuss opportunities for collaboration and coordination.

The passage of this legislation is essential for people in my home state of Texas and the constituents of the 18th Congressional District.

In the Houston metro area, 82 percent of operating firms have fewer than 20 employees.

Together, all these businesses employ around 400,000 workers, about 14 percent of the regional workforce, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's Business Dynamics Statistics.

Nearly 97 percent of businesses in the region have fewer than 500 employees, the standard to be considered a small business, and collectively employ around 44 percent of the region's workforce.

Additionally, the unemployment rate for Houston is around 4.9 percent.

Small businesses play an important role in creating jobs and advancing economic stability for the American people.

The Promoting Opportunities for Non-Traditional Capital Formation Act will work to provide resources to further help small businesses.

I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2797 the Equal Opportunity for All Investors Act of 2023, which expands who would be considered an accredited investor for the purposes of participating in private offerings of securities.

Additionally, certain unregistered securities may only be offered to accredited investors.

Furthermore, this bill allows an individual to qualify through an examination established by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The examination must be designed with an appropriate level of difficulty such that an individual with financial sophistication or training would be unlikely to fail.

It also may include methods to determine competency in certain areas and must be administered by a registered national securities association and offered free of charge to the public.

Currently, accredited investors must satisfy certain requirements indicating their reduced exposure to financial risk, including those related to income, net worth, or knowledge and experience.

I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 382 the Recognizing of the significance of Jewish American Heritage Month as a time to celebrate the contributions of Jewish Americans to the society and culture of the United States.

This resolution condemns the rise of antisemitism and calls on elected officials, faith leaders, and civil society leaders to condemn and combat antisemitism, and to identify and educate others on the contributions of the Jewish American community.

The passage of this legislation is essential for people in my home state of Texas and the constituents of the 18th Congressional District.

2022 was one of the worst years to date when it comes to recorded incidents of hate toward the Jewish community.

There were around 3,700 reported incidents towards individuals.

73 of those reports were in the southwest region and more than half of those reports were in Houston alone.

Earlier this year two neighborhoods in northeast Harris County were littered with hundreds of racist and antisemitic flyers.

H. Res. 382 will help to spread awareness about the hateful acts of antisemitism and to spread recognition of the importance of Jewish American Heritage Month.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the heaviest of hearts to offer my sympathy and recognition to my fellow Texans and fellow Americans.

On this day, the unspeakable happened in Uvalde, Texas. It happened on the 24th. That weekend, I immediately went to Uvalde, simply wanting to embrace and to be able to understand what the parents could not speak.

We worshipped in a church. We walked amongst the flowers. We hugged children. We saw 9-year-olds crying in utter pain because they lost their playmates.

I remember the viciousness of the scene. The loved ones of these children and teachers have never gotten justice. There have been no answers. They have gone day after day asking what happened.

They watched as children scrambled out of windows, looking to see if their child would come. No one helped in the midst of that crisis.

I want us to look at those faces today. Let us mourn and seek justice for these families. I mourn them. I will take my moment of silence in honor of these beautiful children and teachers who died viciously on May 24.

Mr. Speaker, I give the compliment back to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico. We are alums, and we will leave that for all to find out from where, but I am very proud to stand with her and really to stand with all of those who believe that the scourge of fentanyl must end now.

Mr. Speaker, we should not have one more death. I don't think there is any disagreement on this floor that there shouldn't be any more deaths. I also believe that it is important to recognize that there are some things that we come together on. I have never heard a Democrat be against border security. I have never heard a Democrat be against fighting the scourge of fentanyl taking out children.

As I have said over and over again, as a senior member on Homeland Security and Judiciary, who has written comprehensive immigration bills to protect Americans and to secure our borders, at the same time as the ranking member and former chair of the Crime Subcommittee, I know what to do with fentanyl.

I have introduced H.R. 3570. We have to stop fentanyl now to be able to get at the core of our problem. There is no doubt fentanyl comes in mostly from legal points of entry by United States citizens and others.

It does have other entry points, but the core is to protect the lives of our children. Why couldn't we do our work where we are doing one bill and another bill? H.R. 3570 deals with synthetics. It deals with educational outreach.

Just last night, I was speaking to a young person who said, Can you get Naloxone to be, if you will, in nontraditional places, clubs? Certainly, it should be in schools. It might even need to be in places of civic mindedness because it is where young people go to save their lives. Then synthetics, fentanyl that is used medically, are being sold online in pills that are misrepresented to our young people, and they lose their life.

H.R. 3570 takes care of that, fights the scourge of online sales and fentanyl trafficking. There is a pathway of getting to where we want to be, but a schedule I where you are, in essence, doing mandatory minimums that are not stopping, if you will, this horrible traffic. We are indicating we can get to this with enhanced penalties for the actions of the perpetrator so that you don't by mistake get someone innocently doing research or otherwise dealing with this particular drug that we are talking about that can be deadly.

There are scientists, there are responsible medical professionals, and then there are the devastatingly drastic evil people who try to use this to kill our children. We cannot adhere to that.

H.R. 3570 looks at it comprehensively. Working with the Judiciary Committee, working with Energy and Commerce, and all our Members, it is important to put forward legislation that can embrace us all. I believe that we have the responsibility to do the right thing.

The underlying bill could stand some work from all of us, and I ask us to save our children. Let's save our children and stop this deadly drug from coming into the United States, and let's find a way to reach our children.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman as well, Mr. Takano, for his vision and leadership and the years of service that he has given to the Veterans' Affairs Committee. We could not have a more stalwart champion for the veterans of America.

I thank my friends on the other side of the aisle and certainly, our colleague from California, who made a very important point. For this to work it has to be bipartisan. I hope we all will lean into the bipartisan efforts that need to be done to ensure not only its passage but its implementation.

As the ranking member indicated, I am on the Homeland Security Committee and the Budget Committee. Many times in those committees we see the concerns of domestic security. We also see the concerns of effectively utilizing all of our tools to ensure the proper budget for the people of the United States of America.

I cannot think, as we approach Memorial Day, and as we commemorate the accomplishments of Asian Americans in this great month of May, interacting with all of our community, that we would not find an appropriate time to honor those Korean-American soldiers who fought alongside of our fellow Vietnam soldiers in a battle that was for democracy and protecting, if you will, the sense of equality, protecting the people of that era and of that war.

These soldiers bled. They rescued. They stood in front of our soldiers in terms of being comrades and fighting alongside. They saved lives. They lost lives.

I think that it is important to take note of those who served, who were members of the armed forces of the Republic of Korea and are considered veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States, for purposes of the provision of healthcare by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For so long, I would listen to my Vietnam vets before we really answered their call on Agent Orange and saw them get very sick, saw many of them pass away, talking about Agent Orange over and over again, and it just seemed that it was not being heard.

Thank goodness we have done so many different things, such as the PACT Act, Agent Orange Act, all during my tenure as a Member of the United States Congress. We finally understood the truth of what the veterans were saying, and every time they speak, we should listen.

I was with veterans over the weekend, and I thank them everywhere I go. Every speech I make in my community, I ask veterans to rise, and I say thank you.

In this instance, title 38 is a special pay authority used to recruit and retain employees in certain healthcare occupations. It allows NIH to be competitive with other healthcare facilities.

However, this would expand the eligibility of these benefits, this Korean American VALOR Act, to veterans who served in the armed forces of the Republic of Korea during the Vietnam war and have since become naturalized citizens, almost 300,000, and how many others served.

So this legislation is clearly evidence of our relationship between the Republic of Korea and the friendship that we have established.

As we heard from the South Korean President who spoke to a joint session just a few weeks ago, he talked about patriotism, democracy, and the unity of our nations. It is absolutely imperative that we support these Korean war vets who stood alongside of us and acknowledge that they served in Vietnam. They are now naturalized citizens, and they, in fact, have the evidence of the illness. It is so important to call them Korean American Vietnam veterans, naturalized citizens. We want them to get the honor of the Korean American VALOR Act. I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 366 the Korean American Vietnam Allies Long Overdue for Relief (VALOR) Act.

H.R. 366 would amend title 38, United States Code, to treat certain individuals who served in Vietnam as a member of the armed forces of the Republic of Korea as a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States for purposes of the provision of health care by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Title 38 is a special pay authority used to recruit and retain employees in certain health care occupations. It allows NIH to be competitive with other health care facilities in the area.

The Korean American VALOR Act would expand the eligibility of these benefits to veterans who served in the armed forces of the Republic of Korea during the Vietnam War and have since become naturalized U.S. citizens.

This bipartisan legislation, when enacted into law, will provide veterans who served between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, and became U.S. citizens during or after such service, access to hospital and domiciliary care and medical services through the VA.

Approximately 3,000 Korean American Vietnam veterans are naturalized citizens--and the number of surviving veterans continues to dwindle.

As a result of their time in Vietnam, these veterans are falling ill from the diseases caused by exposure to Agent Orange and other toxins and are not receiving adequate care.

Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) fully supports the passage of the Korean American VALOR Act H.R. 366.

The Korean American VALOR Act will protect our veterans that served in Vietnam by providing them with the healthcare relief they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the ranking member; Mr. Bost; my good friend from Texas; the ranking member, the gentleman from New Hampshire; and, of course, in the other body, Senator Tester for a very instructive and important initiative dealing with the cost of living for our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues are embraced and engaged with veterans--which many of us do every time we are home in the district-- they realize that they, in many instances, continue their service in the kinds of work that they do. Realize, however, that they have any number of additional challenges in many instances. That, of course, includes some of the health issues, housing issues, and ability-to- support-family issues.

The cost of living is, in essence, something that we should make as a commitment for the service that they have given.

I know that we often say thank you for your service, and we often have a smile on our face. I want it to be well known, well known, that it is by our action and our deeds, not just by our words.

The veterans that we see across our districts and across America have fought in many wars. Many of them believe that they have not been given the full amount of their veteran benefits.

They believe that they are still trying to petition for a level of disability, if you will. Some are at a certain percentage and feel that they deserve another percentage because they are in a financial condition that causes them to wonder about their service and their service-connected disability. We get all of those questions.

I think the overall statement that has been made about the cost of living is to recognize the difficulty our veterans have, the increasing amount of moneys that it requires for us to take care of our veterans, and that this is a responsible and respectable way of doing so.

I hope that we will pass this quickly. I hope that it will go to the President's desk. I hope that when we see our veterans, we will be able to be an exhibitor of deeds, that we stood on the floor of the House to say thank you.

We stood on the floor of the House to say we recognize the needs that you have from the veterans hospitals, veterans clinics, and certainly for the need of increased compensation.

This is an important statement not only for veterans but for their families.

It is an important statement for the young men and women who put on the uniform today unselfishly.

They will ultimately be veterans, and we hope that they will be able to serve, and they will be able to come out as veterans.

Please be reminded as we celebrate Memorial Day there are those who put on the uniform unselfishly, and they never made it home.

We want to be able to honor those, but as well, we want to honor living veterans. I support this legislation that provides for a veterans COLA of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, we have a serious challenge in this country, a challenge that requires us to act with broadness, swiftness, and, of course, understanding.

I rise today to introduce legislation, the Comprehensive Response to Fentanyl-Related Substances and Fentanyl-Laced Substances Act.

Mr. Speaker, 8.4 million fentanyl-laced fake prescription pills exist. The seizures were directly linked to at least 39 overdose deaths. Between 2019 and 2021, more than 2,200 adolescents overdosed. Ninety-six percent of them were between the ages of 15 and 19. This legislation will look that squarely in the eye and demand that it cease and desist.

We need to increase funding for prevention and treatment programs, programs that provide education and treatment for people who are at risk. Get them while they are subject to being enticed. We need more school-based programs and community-outreach programs. We need to expand access to naloxone, the medication that can reverse the effects, which should be in all schools. We need to crack down on trafficking the little pink pills.

Mr. Speaker, we have to save our children, and we have to save them now. Join Congresswoman Jackson Lee and my original cosponsors to support this legislation, the Comprehensive Response to Fentanyl- Related Substances and Fentanyl-Laced Substances Act. Let's save our children.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida and the gentleman from Illinois, and I join Mr. Horsford in expressing my appreciation to them both for their continuing leadership.

Mr. Speaker, this is a particularly important Special Order, honoring our veterans far and wide; and then telling the stories of our Black veterans, who often have been at the wrong end of the history of this country.

It should be noted that African Americans, some enslaved, have fought in every war since the Revolutionary War, and it is extremely important to recognize that sometimes their stories have not been told.

I was very pleased today to support the legislation that supported a veterans' COLA, cost of living increase. As I indicated previously, we all know that veterans have been victims of homelessness, been discriminated against in terms of not being appreciated for their service, taking their service where they are commanding thousands and giving them an entry-level job. I think it is important that we recognize the importance of their work.

We also know that there have been many who have had service-related injuries who have not been fully compensated. We continue to fight for those who have had exposure to Agent Orange. Certainly, we are more than excited about the passage of the PACT Act brought in the House, where I introduced the Jackson Lee amendment, which would require a report on the feasibility of modifying the individual longitudinal exposure record. That act, of course, even without changes, was, in fact, to add to providing protection to our veterans.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I emphasize the stories of veterans who have fought and who have been in every war, and that includes the wars of the 1800s, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean war, and Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

I acknowledge our friend and colleague, the Honorable Charlie Rangel, who was a Korean war vet in the worst of time, and the coldest of time, and an ugly war. He reminded us during his tenure here that the Korean war was not a conflict. It was, in fact, a war.

We honor the generals who fought in World War II and who still came home to a segregated America, and we must remember those individuals, some who fell out of the skies in World War I and World War II.

We have come full circle. There were 50,000 who died in the Vietnam war, with large numbers of African Americans who lost their lives. General Colin Powell fought in that war. He was wounded, and I pay tribute to him tonight. He ultimately became the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and, as well, ultimately Secretary of State. He had a passion for peace. He believed in peace. Though he was a warrior and a combat leader, he understood the value of peace. We thank him for his service.

My own constituent, Sergeant Williams, he is a Buffalo soldier who fought in the Vietnam war, who lives today exhibiting the bravery of that time. I thank him for his service.

Now we have come full circle in Iraq and Afghanistan, where many African-American men and women rose to the ranks of lieutenant and major. Globally, I thank them. There are many of them who served in my congressional district.

This is an important moment, as we approach the Memorial Day weekend, for those who wore the uniform unselfishly and then lost their lives.

Also, as I supported this COLA increase for our veterans, I remind everyone that there are many homeless veterans, many of whom are Black. I particularly say to them that their status today does not diminish their bravery and service to this Nation.

It should be our commitment that we should not leave any veteran behind and not any veteran homeless. That

will be my commitment, that we continue to fight against that scourge of homeless veterans who want to be reunited with their family members who are in need of the services that will make them whole.

Finally, let me say this: As this Nation deals with default, we cannot forget the veterans who will lose 30 million healthcare appointments and will, in fact, suffer and not have a COLA. Remember what happens when there is no bipartisan effort, and our friends continue to insist on hostage taking. The people who lose out will be the people who are, in fact, our very special veterans. I thank the CBC for honoring our veterans in this way.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak on the Rule offered in consideration of H.R. 2494--Protect Our Law enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement (POLICE) Act of 2023, H.R. 3091-- Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, and H. Con. Res. 40--Expressing support for local law enforcement officers and condemning efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies.

It is unfortunate that this Rule in particular does not include the many amendments that have been offered by my Democratic Colleagues.

As it pertains to H.R. 2494--Protect Our Law enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement (POLICE) Act of 2023, this bill in particular is incredibly ill drafted and intended bill that does not seek to address illegal immigration or support for law enforcement-- rather it creates punitive deportation penalties to remove individuals who are lawfully here--cruelly scaling back on legal immigration pathways rather than increasing them.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem--essentially seeking to expand the scope of people who can be deported.

It is so broadly drafted that people who pose no real danger to law enforcement could be subject to deportation.

Let's be clear, this is not about undocumented immigrants who are already removable. This is about people who have come lawfully and been admitted to the United States.

We are talking about lawful permanent residents. People who have set down roots and established themselves here in the United States.

Given that my Republican colleagues have been unwilling to add a conviction requirement or a requirement that the offense included the intention to cause harm or use violence, I would hope they would be willing to accept an amendment that allows an immigration judge or Department of Homeland Security adjudicator to look at variety of mitigating factors when assessing if someone should be deemed deportable.

And so, my amendment offered in the Rules Committee would have allowed for mitigating factors to be taken into account before someone is deported as a result of an assault on a law enforcement officer.

As has already been discussed, this bill is attempting to add a new avenue to deport people with green cards.

If we are going to deport these people, it should be for a serious offense and there needs to be serious consideration of the circumstances pertaining to the alleged offense.

People who are convicted of serious assaults on law enforcement officers are already deportable.

Under current immigration law, if an individual is convicted of a crime of violence and sentenced to a year or more in prison, that is an aggravated felony and that person is deportable.

The same is true for someone who is convicted of a ``crime involving moral turpitude,'' where the crime is punishable by imprisonment of one year or more.

Both of these deportability grounds are currently invoked when there is a conviction for a serious, intentional assault on a law enforcement officer, where bodily injury occurs or is intended.

This amendment would allow the official making the final determination on deportation the ability to examine additional mitigating factors as evidence weighing against deportation.

The official would be able to take into account:

if there was intent to harm;

the severity of offense;

if the act resulted in harm;

the individual's military service (if any);

how long the individual has been in the United States; and

the individual's ties to the community.

These factors are vitally important for an immigration judge or other adjudicator to consider in order to ensure that we do not end up with some of the absurd results which have already been outlined today by my colleagues.

We should not be deporting long-term green card holders for minor offenses. Just as a reminder, these examples include:

A green card holder in a fire who pushes a firefighter out of the way of a falling beam. This person would have committed assault and become deportable.

Likewise, if a foreign student whose religion prohibits blood transfusions is receiving medical care from an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and she swats the EMT's hand away because she is trying to give him a blood transfusion, that student will have committed assault on a law enforcement officer and become deportable under this bill.

As another example, if a green card holder sees a fight on the street and attempts to intervene by getting between the individuals and pushing them apart. If one of the individuals was an undercover police officer performing his duties, the individual would have committed assault under this bill and become deportable.

In all of these examples, one would hope the individuals would never be charged, let alone convicted of a crime.

However, even without a conviction or intent to harm requirement, by admitting to actions that constitute assault, any of those individuals would have admitted to intentionally assaulting a law enforcement officer and would become deportable under this bill.

We should not be deporting green card holders for such minor offenses.

If the majority insists on doing so, they should at least allow adjudicators to look at mitigating factors to ensure that we are preventing good members of our society from getting swept up in this overbroad bill.

Additionally, in speaking on the Rule for H. Res. 40, Expressing support for local law enforcement officers and condemning efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies, let me just say that it is unfortunate that the Rules Committee did not consider amendments on this bills.

Despite having the opportunity for open debate, the Committee regrettably chose to consider this legislation under a closed rule-- foreclosing any ability for us to make this Resolution one that we could come together on.

Had the Rule allowed, I would have submitted an amendment to remove incendiary and vague language as well as false and misleading claims from this Resolution in an effort to gain agreement around what should be its central point--that we recognize and appreciate the service of all law enforcement officers and condemn all calls to abolish law enforcement agencies of any kind.

First and foremost, my amendment would have removed the word ``local'' anywhere it appears because we should state unequivocally that we support all law enforcement officers--unconditionally.

We know that all law enforcement--male, female, LGBTQ+, very experienced, rookie, patrol, or behind a desk--work tirelessly to protect us and keep us safe. Whether they are state, local, tribal, or federal agents or officers--we are grateful for their service.

These are the individuals we rely on to stop a mass shooter as they opened fire on shoppers at a mall in Texas; to guard and police our borders; to seek out predators behind a computer screen; or to help us locate an elderly or disabled loved one who has wandered off.

And so, this Resolution, as it is currently written, ignores a large portion of dedicated officers who do not fall within the definition of ``local law enforcement''--a term of art of which we legislators are well aware.

My amendment would have corrected that omission and acknowledges the 137,000 federal agents and officers in the 50 states and the District of Columbia--including the United States Capitol Police.

Secondly, my amendment would have eliminated problematic, unnecessary language and misleading claims.

For example, my amendment would have removed the claim that leftist activists and progressive politicians actively encouraged resentment toward law enforcement, which casts a wide, unfair, and erroneous net.

It would also eliminate the claim that language regarding funding police vilifies and harms local law enforcement.

We can all agree that we need law enforcement. Of that, there is no doubt. But defunding the police means different things to different people.

From completely abolishing or disbanding law enforcement agencies--as some of my Republican colleagues have proposed we do to ATF, FBI, and even DOJ--to adding resources to other programs or services that might have been neglected in the past or to lighten the load of officers who are called upon to respond to too much.

That is why I believe my amendment would have allowed Congress to come together on this Resolution, using language on which we all can agree--that does not accuse, disparage, or attempt to shame.

Resolutions like this one make it difficult for us to commence the truly difficult work of making policing safer for law enforcement officers and the communities they serve.

I have worked for decades to adopt reasonable gun violence prevention legislation and to institute transformative policing reforms.

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--often times with handguns.

Although the number of law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty decreased by more than 30 percent over the first six months of 2022 compared to that same period in 2021, the number of officers killed by guns increased by nearly 20 percent.

And, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, for the whole of 2022, the number of officers killed decreased by roughly 61 percent--that is from 586 federal, state, tribal and local law enforcement officers killed in 2021 down to 224.

Despite this dramatic decrease in line-of-duty deaths, due almost entirely to the significant reduction in deaths resulting from COVID- 19, by the end of 2022, the same number of officers died by gunfire as in the previous year--reflecting a 21 percent increase over the historical average of firearms-related deaths between 2010 and 2020. This is unacceptable.

Let's get back to the real work of Congress instead of engaging in partisan gamesmanship.

Lastly, in speaking on the Rule for H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act.

Rather than destroying retired, surplus handguns, this legislation would allow federal agencies to sell those handguns to federal law enforcement officers in good standing--promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer funds.

Although I support this underlying legislation, I would point out that the previous version of this bill, introduced by former Congresswoman Val Demings, included a requirement that any law enforcement officer making a purchase must pass a background check as part of the transfer. But this version does not.

Congresswoman Demings's bill also wisely advised via a sense of Congress that proceeds from the sale of these handguns should be used to fund gun violence prevention or gun safety programs.

These are both excellent ideas that we should add back into this legislation.

While we might assume that no problems could arise in the sale of a handgun to an officer in good standing, a background check or records check of some kind would ensure that vital information has not been missed, overlooked, or fallen through a gap in reporting.

Questions still remain and law enforcement continues to investigate the mass shooting that occurred in Allen, Texas.

But we know that a Defense Department official said that Army staff ``quickly identified'' that the shooter ``was a problem.''

And the Pentagon confirmed that the shooter was terminated from the Army for mental health reasons--after only three months and without completing basic training.

And yet, years later, he completed several firearms proficiency courses for his work as a security guard, amassed a cache of firearms and 13 large capacity magazines, and no one caught that this person probably should not have guns.

Even law enforcement officers purchasing firearms for official use must provide a federal firearms licensee with a certification on agency letterhead that the officer will use the firearm in their official duties and that a records check establishes that the purchasing officer has no convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence--despite there being no requirement to undergo a background check.

Background checks, and records checks in limited circumstances, are important because they help promote public trust.

By ensuring that only responsible, law-abiding individuals, including law enforcement officers, can purchase firearms and are willing to undergo background checks to do so, this program could set the example and promote safer, more secure communities across the country.

We can and we must do more when it comes to buying, selling, and trading firearms. That is why the proceeds derived from the sale of these retired, surplus handguns would be best spent on programs focused exclusively on gun violence prevention and gun safety education and training.

The money earned from these sales could help us find solutions to end the bloodshed because far too many people have died.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for being so eloquent on where we are today.

Let me read the headline of this legislation, H. Con. Res. 40, expressing support for local law enforcement officers. Broadly supported all across America.

Every day we are supporting our local law enforcement, but as well we are supporting our Federal law enforcement that are right in my district today holding a meeting, men and women who put their lives on the line.

I don't know why we couldn't on this last day of National Police Week, as we began the week, as I indicated, and repeat over and over again, that I was there for this ceremony that I have gone to every year, which has honored those who have fallen in battle.

They had everyone represented. Everyone was in brotherhood and sisterhood. Everyone was embracing families and those in law enforcement. No one asked for your Democratic ticket or your Republican ticket. All they were grateful for is you had come to honor and recognize the importance of the work that they do.

This could have been a place where we showed to the Nation the reasoning of our hearts and our minds.

I offered an amendment to include Federal law enforcement. How dare we ignore them on this day?

We cannot ignore January 6. We cannot ignore the Capitol Police, along with those who came to help, who will always have the scars of that horrific day.

Why? Because we have never seen in our modern-day eyes an attack on the United States Capitol that was not in war.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to say, yes, I support local law enforcement. Never have my lips ever said the words that would take dollars away from those personnel, their salaries, and all that they need to do.

I don't know why in a resolution that speaks about honor that we have to mix not even apples and oranges but apples and stench. There is no reason to attack anyone in this. Put a resolution about how much you hate the folks on the other side of the aisle; we will debate that. I don't hate them.

What we tried to do in committee is to say let us make this a resolution, Federal, State and local folk, and let us not talk about folk who are dismantling anything because I don't know Democrats who stood outside of a DA's office and tried to dismantle them. They have an independent decision, right, to make. They are elected by the people. If they are not at the level that the people want, they are gone.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to amend this from the floor. Let this be an amendment that we can all vote for. This is my last word: I support local and Federal law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, I support Federal, State and local law enforcement. I support those that are in my district right now.

I would offer to say, aren't we examples for young people?

Don't we want our children to raise up and support law enforcement and see all of us standing together and not dividing?

Don't we want good policing, good police relationships?

None of that is a divide. It is a unity, and it represents the Constitution of the United States of America.

I tell you that the officers that I engage with believe in it. I ask my colleagues to decide to do something better than this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member, and I thank the manager on the other side for their work.

This is National Police Week. I started my week in joining a family from Houston whose husband and father had fallen as a police officer in the line of duty, but it was also with the throngs of men and women of law enforcement across America and families at the 42nd Annual National Memory Day for law enforcement officers.

I spent quite a bit of time there, interacting with officers that were not only from Texas or Houston. I respect the service that they have given as we, as Members of Congress and Democrats and my friends on the other side of the aisle, should do.

And as we interacted, the response was an appreciation, as I expressed, an appreciation for their service.

We have done a number of bills on the floor, and I am glad that we had one that honored that day. I proudly managed that bill, as well as a number of others that were on previously.

There are a number of bills that have been on the floor or are on the floor today, at least two. Before I speak of the underlying bill, let me acknowledge my support for H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, which has previously been debated. I would say that this deals with Federal law enforcement officers in good standing.

It is a smart way to deal with guns that have been retired. That will allow--rather than creating dust in the GSA, and as well, who knows, them falling in the wrong hands for whatever reason, you might say-- rather than destroying those guns, it would allow Federal agencies to sell the handguns used in the performance of their duties to Federal law enforcement officers in good standing, promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer dollars.

This is good legislation. I hope as it makes its way that they will add some form of a check--which all officers believe in background checks. Maybe they will take those resources and invest in bringing down gun violence, which we know, as of this week, two law enforcement officers were injured in New Mexico, as a young, underage teenager had an AR-15 and killed three innocent civilians.

Mr. Chair, it would be nice if the legislation would use those resources to help bring down gun violence. H.R. 3091 is a good bill, and I intend to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act (in its current form).

When a federal agency has property it no longer needs, such as firearms, the property is declared excess and is reported to GSA to be screened for possible transfer to other Federal agencies with a need for such property.

If no other agencies request the excess property, it is declared surplus--and in the case of firearms, required to be destroyed.

Rather than destroying retired, surplus handguns, H.R. 3091 would allow federal agencies to sell the handguns used in the performance of their duties to federal law enforcement officers in good standing-- promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer funds.

Although I support this legislation, I should point out that the previous version--introduced last Congress by my Democratic colleague-- included a requirement that any law enforcement officer making a purchase must pass a background check as part of the transfer. But this version does not.

The previous version also wisely advised via a sense of Congress that proceeds from the sale of these handguns should be used to fund evidence-based gun violence prevention or gun safety programs.

While we might assume that no problems could arise in the sale of a handgun to an officer in good standing, a background check or records check of some kind would ensure that vital information about that officer has not been missed, overlooked, or fallen through a gap in reporting.

That is why I support the Jacobs' amendment that would further define the good standing requirement--ensuring that only responsible, law- abiding officers can purchase these firearms.

However, because we too must be responsible, especially when it comes to setting policy for buying, selling, and trading firearms, I cannot support this bill if the Republican poison pills are adopted.

This trio of amendments would destroy each of the foundational purposes of the bill that brought Republican and Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee together during the markup of this bill-- promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer funds.

Together, these amendments would allow, not just handguns but military-grade weapons that have no business in civilian homes and communities, to be provided at little to no cost, to retired officers, without any means to determine their suitably for taking possession of these weapons.

I am disappointed that we could lose the opportunity to pass this thoughtful legislation during National Police Week by attaching these reckless amendments.

That is why I implore my colleagues to vote No to the Luttrell, McCormick, and Rosendale amendments.

And I encourage members on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 3091 and the Jacobs Amendment.

Mr. Chair, we are now at a time when we are talking about H.R. 2494. I would say that when interacting with law enforcement officers, I have never heard one person raise this. I don't think we can condemn prosecutors across America that they are not willing to stand up and be counted when any assault occurs against an officer.

Any such legitimate assault should be both an arrest and prosecution. That is not what we are saying. If it happens to be an LPR or green card holder or whatever status the person has--arrested and prosecuted.

What we are saying is desperate people come to this country and they work hard to get a status, and if it is legitimate, they wind up in jail. That is where they can be. H.R. 2494 ignores that.

One, it is not one that you have heard any officers asking for. Two, that person can be convicted and wind up in jail. I know there is an amendment to say if they are convicted that would be the case. Ordinarily, they would be able to serve their time. I don't think that we should use this hammer to tear families apart.

Mr. Chair, this bill has been ill-drafted in harmful measure and does not seek to address a need that people are crying for.

The bill insults prosecutors across America. You can't label them all. In essence, it insults law enforcement officers, who themselves know that somebody who is in distress might respond accordingly. It insults the long time it takes to become a citizen of the United States, and some of these individuals have been waiting and waiting and maybe had an unfortunate circumstance. We are talking about some of the incidents that Ranking Member Nadler cited. It is just unruly.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to consider thoughtfully that we are doing good in a bipartisan way. Let us continue to do that. Police like to see that. They like to see themselves being affirmed in a bipartisan manner. They don't like to see other people being scapegoats.

Mr. Chair, we want them to be safe. We don't want violence. We don't want them to be injured. That is the statement we all should make. Let's find laws that will ensure that that will not happen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2494, the Protect Our Law Enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement (POLICE) Act.

This bill is an incredibly ill drafted and harmful measure that does not seek to address illegal immigration or support for law enforcement--rather it creates punitive deportation penalties to remove individuals who are lawfully here--cruelly scaling back on legal immigration pathways rather than increasing them.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem--essentially seeking to expand the scope of people who can be deported.

It is so broadly drafted that people who pose no real danger to law enforcement could be subject to deportation.

Let's be clear, this is not about undocumented immigrants who are already removable. This is about people who have come lawfully and been admitted to the United States.

We are talking about lawful permanent residents. People who have set down roots and established themselves here in the United States.

Given that my Republican colleagues have been unwilling to add a conviction requirement or a requirement that the offense included the intention to cause harm or use violence, I had hoped they would have been willing to accept an amendment that allows an immigration judge or Department of Homeland Security adjudicator to look at variety of mitigating factors when assessing if someone should be deemed deportable.

During the Judiciary Committee markup and the Rules Committee hearing, offered in the Rules Committee would have allowed for mitigating factors to be taken into account before someone is deported as a result of an assault on a law enforcement officer.

However, my Democratic colleagues and I could not get any Republican to roll back their punitive and damaging intent to harm any and all individuals seeking refuge and citizenship here in the U.S.--no matter the vulnerability of their circumstances.

As has already been discussed, this bill is attempting to add a new avenue to deport people with green cards.

If we are going to deport these people, it should be for a serious offense and there needs to be serious consideration of the circumstances pertaining to the alleged offense.

People who are convicted of serious assaults on law enforcement officers are already deportable.

Under current immigration law, if an individual is convicted of a crime of violence and sentenced to a year or more in prison, that is an aggravated felony and that person is deportable.

The same is true for someone who is convicted of a ``crime involving moral turpitude,'' where the crime is punishable by imprisonment of one year or more.

Both of these deportability grounds are currently invoked when there is a conviction for a serious, intentional assault on a law enforcement officer, where bodily injury occurs or is intended.

This amendment would have allow the official making the final determination on deportation the ability to examine additional mitigating factors as evidence weighing against deportation.

The official would be able to take into account:

if there was intent to harm;

the severity of offense;

if the act resulted in harm;

the individual's military service (if any);

how long the individual has been in the United States; and

the individual's ties to the community.

These factors are vitally important for an immigration judge or other adjudicator to consider in order to ensure that we do not end up with some of the absurd results which have already been outlined today by my colleagues.

We should not be deporting long-term green card holders for minor offenses. Just as a reminder, these examples include:

A green card holder in a fire who pushes a firefighter out of the way of a falling beam. This person would have committed assault and become deportable.

Likewise, if a foreign student whose religion prohibits blood transfusions is receiving medical care from an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and she swats the EMT's hand away because she is trying to give him a blood transfusion, that student will have committed assault on a law enforcement officer and become deportable under this bill.

As another example, if a green card holder sees a fight on the street and attempts to intervene by getting between the individuals and pushing them apart. If one of the individuals was an undercover police officer performing his duties, the individual would have committed assault under this bill and become deportable.

In all of these examples, one would hope the individuals would never be charged, let alone convicted of a crime.

However, even without a conviction or intent to harm requirement, by admitting to actions that constitute assault, any of those individuals would have admitted to intentionally assaulting a law enforcement officer and would become deportable under this bill.

We should not be deporting green card holders for such minor offenses.

If the majority insists on doing so, they should at least allow adjudicators to look at mitigating factors to ensure that we are preventing good members of our society from getting swept up in this overbroad bill.

Let me just say that it is truly unfortunate that the Rules Committee did not consider my amendment or that of my colleagues.

We need to stop putting forth harmful and unproductive legislation and work on passing legislation that truly addresses meaningful immigration reform.