Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I am strongly opposed to H.R. 2096, which would repeal provisions of a law enacted by the District of Columbia. Madam Speaker, D.C. deserves the right to govern itself. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate full legislative authority to the District of Columbia for local matters. However, Republicans choose not to do so.

Police officers are entrusted with extraordinary authority to protect public safety. The vast majority of officers exercise it honorably and bravely. However, there must be accountability and transparency for instances in which officers violate their oath of office.

H.R. 2096 would repeal provisions of a 2023 D.C. law that made it easier for the police department to discipline officers for crimes and serious misconduct. Before that law, the department had been forced to rehire a significant number of officers it had fired for crimes and official misconduct.

Let me provide examples of the types of officers the department had to rehire: officers convicted or arrested for child abuse, sexual assault, indecent exposure, drunk driving causing injuries, domestic violence, and assaults while off-duty. D.C. also had to provide millions of dollars in backpay to those officers it was forced to rehire. D.C. also had to pay millions of dollars to resolve police officer misconduct lawsuits.

Before the 2023 D.C. law, every single D.C. police chief, for at least the prior 25 years, has requested more authority to discipline officers. H.R. 2096 would inexplicably revoke this authority. By bringing H.R. 2096 to the floor, Republicans are declaring they know better than the D.C. police chiefs how to run the department.

Let's hear what some of these D.C. police chiefs have had to say about this authority. Let's start with former Chief Peter Newsham. He said that he had to allow ``very bad police officers back into our department.''

Former Chief Charles Ramsey said: ``It is demoralizing to the rank and file who really do not want to have those kinds of people in their ranks. It causes a tremendous amount of anxiety in the public. Our credibility is shot whenever these things happen.''

Former Chief Robert Contee said that this authority would ``help reduce the risk of returning poor performers to the force. . . . ''

Following the devastating murder of George Floyd, D.C. enacted the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, which, in pertinent part, made it easier for the police department to discipline officers. H.R. 2096 would repeal that discipline provision in that law.

H.R. 2096, as introduced, includes a purpose section. The purpose is ``to combat the rise in violent crime in our Nation's Capital by eliminating policies which place law enforcement personnel of the District of Columbia at risk and discourage them from serving, ensuring that such personnel will be treated equitably and fairly and the recruitment and retention of such personnel shall be increased.'' We are not surprised that the version of H.R. 2096 on the floor today does not include that purpose section since it is inaccurate.

Violent crime is not rising here in D.C. In 2025, violent crime in D.C. is down 22 percent compared to the same period in 2024. In 2024, violent crime in D.C. was the lowest in over 30 years. Let me repeat. Violent crime is falling in D.C. and is at a 30-year low in the District of Columbia.

The D.C. Police Department is not alone in having difficulty in recruiting and retaining police officers. Police departments of all sizes across the country have had this difficulty for many years. A survey conducted in 2019, before jurisdictions across the country enacted police accountability and transparency legislation after the murder of George Floyd, found ``that the difficulty in recruiting law enforcement officers and employees is not due to one particular cause. Rather, multiple social, political, and economic forces are all simultaneously at play. . . . ''

H.R. 2096 would repeal four discipline provisions.

First, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that removed police officer discipline for collective bargaining. Several States, including States represented by Republicans, prohibit collective bargaining by police officers. The 2023 D.C. law maintained the right of police officers to collectively bargain, except over discipline, and maintained the civil service protections and due process rights of officers.

Collective bargaining by police officers has been widely criticized for protecting police officers from discipline. A Republican staff report for the Joint Economic Committee said: ``Collective bargaining plays a significant role in shielding police officers from the consequences of their misconduct. . . . ''

Second, H.R. 2096 would reinstitute a 90-day statute of limitations on the police department to commence discipline. The 2023 D.C. law repealed that provision because 90 days was not enough time, in some cases, to commence discipline. Adjudicators had overturned discipline because the department had exceeded the 90-day statute of limitations. There is no statute of limitations for most D.C. employees. The home State of the sponsor of H.R. 2096 has an 18-month statute of limitations to commence discipline against police officers.

Third, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that gave the police chief the authority to increase the discipline proposed by a police trial board, which consists of police officers. Before the 2023 D.C. law, the police chief could only impose or reduce the proposed discipline or order a new trial. The D.C. law increased the discipline power of the chief and reduced the discipline power of the trial board, which may be more inclined to protect their fellow officers from discipline.

Fourth, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that required the police department to publish on a public website a schedule of officer discipline hearings which are open to the public. The House of Representatives itself publishes on a public website a schedule of its committee hearings.

I close with a question and a plea. If Republicans support police officers, why hasn't Speaker Johnson installed the plaque honoring the brave police officers, including D.C. officers, who defended this Capitol on January 6? Federal law requires its installation by March 15, 2023, more than 2 years ago.

That plaque in honor of officers who were killed defending the Members of this Congress, defending this institution, is apparently sitting in a closet. The families of those officers who were killed and beaten that day are waiting for the due respect that is owed to their husbands, sons, and fathers.

The more than 700,000 D.C. residents who have all the obligations of citizenship, including paying Federal taxes and serving in our Nation's wars, deserve voting representation in Congress and full home rule. I call on the House of Representatives to pass H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Deirdre Schifeling, Anthony Romero, and Deborah Archer of the American Civil Liberties Union in opposition to H.R. 2096.

June 10, 2025.

Re Vote ``No'' on H.R. 2096 Protecting Our Nation's Capital

Emergency Act Which Would Allow Dangerous Officers Who

Have Been Terminated for Criminal Conduct or Police

Misconduct to Remain Employed as D.C. Metropolitan Police

Officers Endangering Public Safety, Evading

Accountability, and Eroding Public Trust.

Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union

strongly urges you to oppose H.R. 2096 which would make it

easier for police officers accused of criminal conduct or

police misconduct to be reinstated as D.C. Metropolitan

Police Department officers. H.R. 2096 removes key polic

misconduct oversight provisions from The Comprehensive

Policing and Justice Amendment Act of 2022 which was signed

into law.

H.R. 2096 repeals key portions of current local law that

address the problems highlighted in recent D.C. Auditor's

report of officers being rehired despite being previously

terminated for police misconduct or criminal conduct.

Specifically:

1. H.R. 2096 would reinstate the ineffective, slow, and

costly arbitration process for handling cases where officers

are accused of crimes or police misconduct and face

termination of employment.

2. H.R. 2096 would place a 90-day limit on the police

department to start a disciplinary response, but this bill

does not place a time limit to take a case to arbitration.

From 2015-2021 officers who were fired and/or their

representatives allowed years to pass before bringing a case

to arbitration resulting in large awards for backpay and high

administrative costs for the District.

3. H.R. 2096 would remove the transparency requirement for

the police department to publish on a public website a

schedule of adverse action hearings in which the proposed

discipline for an officer is termination, including the date,

time, and location of the hearing, the name and badge number

of the officer, and a summary of the alleged misconduct or

charges.

4. H.R. 2096 also removes the D.C. Metropolitan Police

Chief's ability to increase proposed penalties for officers.

H.R. 2096 Will Reinstitute Closed-Door Arbitration Hearings

for Officers Accused of Criminal Conduct and Police

Misconduct, A System Which Puts Dangerous Officers Back in

the Metropolitan Police Department and Costs Taxpayers

Millions.

H.R. 2096 will institute a police officer negotiated, non-

public arbitration for cases where an officer has been or

will be fired for misconduct. This system makes it nearly

impossible to fire officers from the D.C. Metropolitan Police

who have engaged in criminal

conduct and conduct that violates civil liberties due to the

convoluted and lopsided nature of the arbitration. According

to former Metropolitan Police Department Chief Peter Newsham,

the arbitration system puts ``very bad police officers back

into our department.'' In 2022, the Office of the District of

Columbia Auditor issued a report studying the cases of

officers fired and then reinstated by the D.C. Metropolitan

Police from 2015 to 2021. Thirty-seven D.C. Metropolitan

police officers were fired for allegations criminal conduct,

civil rights violations, and officer conduct violations.

These dangerous officers were reinstated, on average, 8 years

later, and 36 of those officers were paid $14.3 million in

taxpayer dollars.

Of the 37 police officers who were terminated and then

reinstated by the closed-door arbitration system that H.R.

2096 would reinstitute, 17 (46 percent) were terminated for

police misconduct defined as `threat to safety' which meant

these officers engaged in conduct that included a risk of

harm to persons through action or inaction, such as physical

and sexual violence, mishandling firearms, or compromising

evidence related to an arrest. The other 20 officers (54

percent) were terminated for reasons such as

misrepresentation of injuries, time theft, fraud, and other

misconduct that violated the Metropolitan Police rules and

code of conduct (see below for examples from the 2022 audit

report).

H.R. 2096 Will Protect Dangerous Police Officers from Being

Fired and These Officers Will Continue Their Pattern and

Practice of Civil Liberties Violations.

Officers who were fired from the D.C. Metropolitan Police

Department for criminal conduct or police misconduct continue

their pattern of dangerous behavior and have police

misconduct complaints even after being reinstated. As of

September 2022, 15 of the 37 officers that were fired and

reinstated through the arbitration process which H.R. 2096

will reinstate are still working at the D.C. Metropolitan

Police Department. Six of the 15 officers (40 percent) had

another official misconduct complaint filed by the

Metropolitan Police Department after they were reinstated.

H.R. 2096's arbitration system encourages officers to engage

in civil rights violations against the public because

dangerous officers know they will simply be reinstated

through the arbitration process and cannot be fired.

This bill fails to learn any of the lessons of the murder

of George Floyd by police officers: officers with a pattern

of misconduct must be removed from employment, not simply

cycled back into positions of authority and control.

H.R. 2096 Will Reinstate the 8 Year Arbitration Process

That Pays Dangerous Police Officers $374,000 on Average in

Backpay and Costs the District $895,000 Annually in Personnel

Resources. H.R. 2096 does not create a timelier process for

the resolution of police misconduct cases. H.R. 2096 will

reinstate a termination process that is not public and

overseen by arbitrators. This process is heavily skewed to

protect dangerous police officers by allowing them to

capitalize on a drawn-out arbitration process that does not

set any time limits for officers to bring their case to

arbitration.

According to a 2022 Report issued by the Office of the D.C.

Auditor, from 2015 to 2021, the police officer termination

and reinstatement process lasted an average of 8 years, the

average amount of backpay the District paid to these officers

was $374,000, and the District personnel and resources spent

on these drawn-out arbitration processes totaled an estimated

$895,000 each year for a period of five years.

H.R. 2096 sets a 90-day limit on the police department to

commence corrective or adverse action against a police

officer or civilian employee but does not place any time

limits on the fired officers, or their representatives, to

bring a case to arbitration in a timely fashion. Fired

officers and their representatives have allowed years to pass

before bringing a case for arbitration creating a process

that takes, on average, 8 years before a misconduct case is

resolved resulting in costly backpay payouts for the District

of Columbia. Additionally, the 90-day time limit in this

legislation allows individuals engaged in criminal conduct to

avoid any accountability for misconduct through a technical

hurdle and one-sided timeline requirement.

The officer discipline process H.R. 2096 would reinstate

has proven to be excessively slow, a waste of taxpayer money,

and puts officers unfit to serve back in the Metropolitan

Police Department.

H.R 2096 Creates a Wall of Secrecy and Undermines Public

Transparency and Accountability.

This legislation will remove the current requirement for

the Metropolitan Police Department to publish on a public

website a schedule of adverse action hearings in which the

proposed discipline for an officer is termination, including

the date, time, and location of the hearing, the name and

badge number of the officer, and a summary of the alleged

misconduct or charges.

Public access to police misconduct information is a key

component of accountability and reduces the likelihood that

an individual engaging in criminal behavior or police

misconduct can simply resign and join another law enforcement

agency. A recent study published in The Yale Law Journal

found 800 officers in Florida who were fired, some even for

serious misconduct, and were rehired at another police

department. Police misconduct records are often inaccessible

to the individuals and communities most affected by excessive

use of force and police misconduct. H.R. 2096 would remove a

critical tool that allows for greater transparency and

accountability.

For these reasons, the ACLU strongly urges you to vote

``NO'' on H.R. 2096. If you have any questions, please

contact Nina Patel, Senior Policy Counsel, Justice Division.

Sincerely,

Cynthia W. Rosebery,

Director, Justice Division,

ACLU National.

Nina Patel,

Senior Policy Counsel,

ACLU National.

Monica Hopkins,

Executive Director,

ACLU District of Columbia.

Melissa Wasser,

Senior Policy Counsel,

ACLU District of Columbia.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 160, the Aerial Firefighting Enhancement Act.

This bill amends the Wildfire Suppression Aircraft Transfer Act of 1996 to reauthorize the sale of aircraft and parts by the Defense Department for wildfire suppression for 10 years.

This bill reauthorizes the Secretary of Defense to sell excess Department of Defense aircraft and aircraft parts, which are acceptable for commercial sale to persons or entities that contract with the government for the delivery of fire retardants or water by air to suppress wildfires. The aircraft and parts could only be used for fire suppression.

This bill will help the U.S. suppress wildfires and recognizes the unfortunate reality that fire season is now year-round and additional resources, including aircraft, are required to effectively suppress catastrophic wildfires.

S. 160 is a bipartisan, commonsense bill that will help the United States maintain a robust fleet of wildfire suppression aircraft. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, the Aerial Firefighting Enhancement Act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the majority for their courtesy in moving this bill expeditiously to the floor.

The Esophageal Cancer Awareness Act was introduced by our dear friend, the late Ranking Member Gerry Connolly and by a bipartisan and unanimous vote of our committee, the bill was renamed in his honor.

First of all, I acknowledge Gerry's wife, Smitty, and his daughter, Caitlin Rose, who are in the gallery, along with many of Gerry's current and former staff to witness the debate on this bill.

Our Ranking Member, Mr. Connolly, lived his life serving others and making our country a better place. He was a steadfast advocate of the disadvantaged and the voiceless, and he stood up for what was right and what was just.

Gerry was a skilled statesman, an accomplished legislator, and a fierce defender of democracy. I am sure he would want everyone here to continue fighting like hell to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves, to defend the rights of every American, and bring accountability and transparency to power.

Esophageal cancer is the fastest increasing cancer among American men. It is also one of the deadliest. This bill would direct the GAO to report on key issues relating to esophageal cancer, including Federal spending for it under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program and the screening rates among high-risk individuals within that program. This bill will hopefully offer some significant amount of help in the fight against esophageal cancer.

Mr. Connolly was the epitome of a public servant and will be deeply missed. It is our job now to continue this fight in his memory.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia) for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Springfield for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning on behalf of our friend and colleague Gerry Connolly, the gentleman from Virginia, with the hope of infusing this debate with his passion and wisdom on behalf of the Federal workers for whom there was no greater champion.

Gerry was especially grateful for the Federal workers at the VA and the Walter Reed Medical Center, especially the nurses, therapists, physicians, and support staff who care for our veterans and active military.

In all honesty, Gerry was furious at the way the Federal workers and veterans are being treated under this bill. He was angry that Donald Trump purged 325,000 Federal workers, including at least 3,000 workers at the VA. He was angry that the cuts in this reconciliation bill will require the firing of 80,000 more workers at the VA. At least 27,000 of those workers are veterans themselves.

While the termination of these workers at the VA is outrageous and disrespectful, it is only half the story because it is the mission of those workers at the VA to care for our veterans that will be ended, as well.

Each of us should remember that veterans' benefits are different. They are special obligations taken on by our country, our society, and our Congress. Veterans' benefits are obligations owed to our veterans for courageous service previously rendered. It is the promise to every son and daughter who puts on that uniform that if you come home from service with the scars of war, visible or invisible, we will take care of you and your family.

That promise has been maintained throughout this Nation's history by Democratic and Republican administrations without pause until now, until tonight, until Donald Trump signs this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a disgraceful way to treat both workers at the VA and the veterans they serve. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I take the floor of the people's House in memory of the late Danny Ryan, or ``Budzo'' to those who were lucky enough to have known him.

Danny Ryan passed away earlier this month. His absence, like his presence, has left a profound impact on all the people and communities he touched throughout his nearly 82 years of life.

Danny Ryan was born in the Savin Hill section of Dorchester in the city of Boston, Massachusetts, and remained devoted to the community throughout his life.

He was involved in Dorchester youth sports. Danny volunteered in youth soccer before it was popular, and coached Little League. He was a huge supporter of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Dorchester. He coached girls' basketball.

Danny performed a thousand other acts of kindness, often with his special needs family members Michael or Rocco in tow, the kinds of things that would turn a cluster of three-deckers with people speaking seven different languages into a single community.

Danny's official title was court officer for the Boston Municipal Court. For over 30 years, Budzo's job was to stand in court at the judge's elbow, ostensibly as security. In reality, he was a witness as every sad, sorry, or sinister episode on the court's calendar that day proceeded to judgment.

That experience put Danny in a position to see humanity at its worst moments day after day and arraignment after arraignment: Abject poverty, broken families, homelessness, domestic violence, gang violence, much of it was fueled by a desperate lack of opportunity and a numbing level of substance abuse. It was enough to make anyone lose hope.

While the court may have rendered judgment, Danny Ryan did not. It appeared to have the opposite effect on Danny. It seemed to open his heart. Many believed that it was through that experience that Danny found his true purpose in life. He figured it out. He often recited the fact that 90 percent of the cases that came before the court and 90 percent of the sentenced individuals had underlying substance abuse issues that were really at the root of their offensive behavior.

He had this idea that if he could just get at the source of that substance abuse disorder and fix that problem, the other stuff either went away or became more manageable.

Danny didn't just preach sobriety. He lived by example. Danny was sober for over 51 years, and he was extremely proud and grateful to be part of the wider recovery community.

For over 15 years, Danny was on the board of directors for the Gavin Foundation, a hugely successful substance abuse treatment program. He played a big role in helping the Gavin Foundation expand and diversify their services into different populations across the city and to the city of Quincy.

During AA meetings, Danny was always the first to welcome new members and offer them help and guidance on their journey. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that Danny Ryan helped keep families together and saved hundreds of lives. He became transformed into someone whose purpose and passion in life was for helping others.

No matter what their situation, he treated everyone with dignity and respect. If someone needed help, meeting them or going halfway was never enough. He made it his business to go out of his way to assist those in need.

Danny was a proud graduate of Boston College High School and a recipient of their Paul J. Hunter Man for Others Award. It is given to people who demonstrate high moral character and a strong sense of service to others. That was Danny. In fact, one of his favorite mottoes to live by was: Try to help three people a day.

Danny and his wife, Dorothy, have four beautiful daughters: Melissa, Shannon, Danielle, and Kasey. He was a proud husband, father, grandfather, and was blessed with eight grandchildren.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I pray that Danny Ryan's life and his work might serve as an example to us all.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Military and Foreign Affairs, I rise in strong opposition to executive actions taken by the Trump administration to shut down U.S. foreign assistance and undermine America's national security.

Over the past two decades, I have led multiple bipartisan congressional delegations to Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Ukraine, Somalia, and Gaza, as well as other conflict zones. These oversight missions have examined the implementation of U.S. foreign assistance firsthand, precisely because the security and humanitarian aid that we provide to our international partners is critical to advancing U.S. national security and foreign policy priorities around the world.

Recent executive actions taken by the Trump administration demonstrate a blatant disregard for the important role that foreign aid serves in keeping America, including American servicemembers who are deployed in these conflict zones, safe.

In the first major foreign policy action of his new term, President Trump issued an indiscriminate stop order, suspending U.S. foreign assistance for at least 3 months. That includes the suspension of security and military aid to Ukraine which is entering the fourth year of its fight for independence against the brutal and unlawful invasion ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2022. Our continued support for Ukraine is vital to the ability of the U.S. and our NATO allies to deter escalating Russian aggression across Europe.

The order also freezes aid to Taiwan which remains the target of Chinese military incursions that threaten peace and stability in a region where nearly 400,000 U.S. military and civil personnel are deployed in support of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. To make matters worse, the Trump administration has halted all mine removal programs led by the State Department in more than 125 countries.

During oversight visits to Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas where former battlefields are littered with antipersonnel explosive devices, I have directly observed the partnership between U.S. agencies and nongovernmental organizations such as The HALO Trust and the Lebanese Mine Action Center who work together to remove landmines, cluster munitions, and other ordnance for the safety of local populations and American diplomatic and military personnel.

This week, I will be introducing the Global Demining Protection Act, endorsed by The HALO Trust, to exempt demining programs from the ongoing ban on foreign aid.

Most recently, the Trump administration launched a full-scale attack on USAID, an independent agency duly established and annually funded by Congress. The fundamental mission of this agency and its global workforce of more than 10,000 dedicated employees is to promote stable democracies abroad in the interest of U.S. national security.

First, top USAID security officers were removed for rightfully refusing to grant billionaire Elon Musk and his so-called DOGE team access to sensitive personnel files and classified systems.

Next, President Trump attempted to place all directly hired USAID employees on administrative leave, including those who are deployed overseas.

Thankfully, a Federal district judge has issued a temporary restraining order, preventing the administration from placing employees on leave or evacuating them from overseas assignments. In Mr. Musk's words: ``USAID is a criminal organization. Time for it to die.''

The agency that he is desperate to kill without congressional approval is one whose development mission in more than a hundred conflict countries is designed to prevent the root causes of global violence and extremism, including famine, civil war, and human rights abuses. That is why the nonpartisan American Foreign Service Association reports that development is the most important tool in our national security toolbox.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose these

reckless actions in the interest of the safety and security of every American.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs, I rise in strong opposition to the expansionist rhetoric that President Trump is directing toward America's strongest and longstanding allies and international partners.

Four days into the new administration, it is clear that the Trump foreign policy doctrine is motivated by territorial expansion and revanchism, or

the obsession to recover so-called lost land.

This distorted worldview is anathema to America's historic role in defense of freedom across the globe. It also mirrors the imperial ambitions that have misled the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping into exerting economic and military power to attack and threaten sovereign nations and the rights of self-governing people in Ukraine, the Republic of Georgia, and Taiwan.

In his inaugural address, President Trump pronounced that the U.S. will ``expand our territory.'' He has specifically proposed that we make Greenland great again by annexing the island from Denmark, which is a NATO ally that he has threatened with tariffs unless it cedes to his demands. When asked if he would use military force to seize Greenland, President Trump refused to rule it out.

The President has similarly suggested that the U.S. could annex Canada as the 51st State, vowing to wield economic retribution against a country that, after World War II, helped us establish the very rules- based international order that he is now attempting to subvert.

As a matter of fact, since the First World War, more than 2 million Canadian Armed Forces personnel have fought right alongside, shoulder to shoulder, U.S. troops in defense of freedom and security in Europe, the Pacific theater, Korea, Kosovo, Haiti, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. Nearly 120,000 Canadian servicemembers have made the ultimate sacrifice in support of these U.S.-led operations. Just last year, Canada marked the 80th anniversary since over 14,000 of its Canadian soldiers stormed the beaches on D-day alongside American troops.

President Trump has also declared that he is taking back the Panama Canal, which returned to Panamanian control under the treaties negotiated by the U.S. and Panama in 1977. When asked if he would rule out the use of force to regain its control, the President refused to do so. The Republic of Panama is a strategic U.S. partner whose cooperation to combat drug trafficking, illegal immigration, and maritime piracy is vital to our national security.

Understandably, our allies and international partners have responded to these expansionist threats by reaffirming their right to self- determination.

The Prime Minister of Greenland stated: ``Our future and fight for independence is our business.'' The Foreign Minister of Denmark warned: ``We can't have a world order where [big] countries . . . can just help themselves to what they want.''

The Prime Minister of Canada declared: ``The 51st State, it is not going to happen.''

The President of Panama just alerted the United Nations Security Council that President Trump may be violating the U.N. charter, which prohibits the use of threats and force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other states.

Mr. Speaker, if President Trump continues to pursue expansionism at the expense of freedom and national security, America will join the ranks of gangster nations whose imperialist dictators violate international law just to expand their territorial power.

As Russian President Putin tells it, Russia has no borders, and Ukraine is simply historically Russian land that has been stolen.

President Xi has professed that Taiwan is China's ``sacred territory'' and that reunification is a ``historic inevitability.''

An American President simply cannot be espousing similar views.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to firmly reject expansionist rhetoric and actions taken by President Trump.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of more than 2.3 million dedicated civil servants that make up our Federal workforce, including nearly 30,000 Federal employees who work in my own congressional district.

As a former union president of Iron Workers Local 7, I am also proud to stand in solidarity with the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, our postal employee unions, and over 30 other labor organizations that tirelessly advocate for fair wages, safe working conditions, and quality healthcare and pensions for our Federal workers.

With less than 40 days until the Presidential Inauguration, the new Trump administration has already announced its intent to target and scapegoat Federal employees, all in the name of cost reduction while at the same time extending trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the richest Americans.

This reflects a blatant disregard for the sacrifices made by Federal workers at the VA and elsewhere and the critical services that they deliver to the American people.

According to President-elect Trump, America's Federal workforce is full of: deep-state rogue bureaucrats, crooked and dishonest people who are destroying this country and who are going to be held accountable.

To this end, he is seeking to revive schedule F, a punitive employment classification that will strip career Federal employees of their due process rights and other statutory civil service protections. This new category would also pave the way for the administration to fire these nonpartisan workers at will and replace them with political loyalists.

President-elect Trump has also recently announced the creation of a so-called Department on Government Efficiency, or DOGE, Commission, an unofficial advisory panel that would purportedly serve to dismantle the government bureaucracy.

The co-chairs of this alleged department are two billionaires, Elon Musk, and Vivek Ramaswamy, who have vowed to conduct mass layoffs and employee relocations in order to reduce the size of Federal Government. As they tell it, most Federal employees don't even show up to work anyway.

These unwarranted attacks against our Federal workforce only serve to perpetuate false narratives that greatly undermine the value of public service and undermine the morale and ability of Federal employees to deliver essential services to the American people.

As former chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations and the Federal Workforce, I can attest that these Federal workers are not rogue bureaucrats or deep-state actors. Rather, many, many of them are patriotic military veterans.

In fact, our Federal workforce consists of nearly 650,000 U.S. armed service veterans, or more than 30 percent of all Federal employees. In fact, the vast majority of Federal employees work in service to care for 18 million veterans and their families who are served and cared for by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which employees nearly 490,000 doctors, nurses, medical staff, social workers, and other healthcare professionals, caring for our Nation's veterans.

Our Federal workforce also consistently shows up to work, even during national emergencies, as reported by the Partnership for Public Service. Frontline Federal employees are deployed in the field nationwide as Border Patrol agents, food inspectors, postal workers, TSA officers, forest firefighters, FEMA disaster response personnel, clinical biologists, and other jobs that support public safety in times of crisis.

According to the Office of Personnel Management, only 15 percent of Federal workers actually live in the D.C. area with 85 percent of Federal workers stationed in communities across our Nation.

In stark contrast to President-elect Trump and his billionaire DOGE co-chairs, Federal employees are not looking to get rich. The Federal Salary Council reports that in 2024, Federal workers earned nearly 25 percent less on average than their private sector counterparts. Recent strikes by the autoworkers, UPS Teamsters, Kaiser healthcare personnel, and other private sector workers have resulted in historic and well- deserved wage increases, in some cases more than 20 percent.

Meanwhile, to ensure the continuity of government services, Federal workers are expressly prohibited by statute from participating in a strike. They must stay on the job. Asserting the right to strike and even belonging to a union that asserts the right to strike against the Federal Government is a violation and a felony and punishable by imprisonment. In the interest of public safety, frontline Federal employees also stay on the job without pay for the duration of every government shutdown.

Nevertheless, every Federal worker proudly takes an oath of office that reflects their commitment to our Nation, to public service, and dedication to carrying out their agency mission on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, sadly, Elon Musk has even resorted to publicly naming Federal employees who he would like to fire on social media. Our Federal workforce deserves better. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in strong support of America's

Federal workers in the face of escalating threats on their service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of my dear friend, John Patrick McGahan, in recognition of his retirement as the leader, CEO and guiding light of Gavin Foundation. Gavin Foundation has been a sanctuary and source of refuge, comfort and rebirth for so many individuals in Massachusetts suffering from the disease of addiction.

And it is my honor to bring to the floor this evening the gratitude of thousands of families from my District and beyond who are grateful beyond words for John McGahan's service to the Massachusetts recovery community over the past 31 years.

John McGahan was born in Concord, New Hampshire on April 3, 1961, to Thomas and Viola McGahan but it was not until 1991, in what can now be seen as divine providence, that John traveled from New Hampshire to South Boston in search of sobriety. And like many before him seeking that help, he found his way to the doors of the Gavin House.

John was a resident of Gavin House for 6 months and it was here that many believe John found his calling and placed him on a path that not only changed his life, but one day at a time helped change the lives of thousands.

Understanding the change sobriety had made in his own life, John McGahan developed a relentless passion for helping others to obtain sobriety. John volunteered and then took a job at Gavin House in 1992. In 1999, in the midst of a teen suicide cluster, John helped to establish and operate the Cushing House for boys--the state's first residential recovery home for adolescent boys. John was a driving force behind the Total Immersion Program (TIP), an alternative to incarceration for those struggling with addiction. Building on the success of the Cushing House for boys, in 2006 John helped create the Cushing House for girls, the only female adolescent recovery home in the state.

In 2007, John was appointed CEO of the Gavin Foundation. John committed himself completely to the mission of the foundation--``the restoration of dignity'' for those suffering from addiction. He ensured that every individual could receive the care they needed and had access to sobriety tools and support. John learned and utilized all the elements of funding, education, and advocacy, and combined these key concepts to create the thriving Gavin Foundation recovery network we know today.

Under John's leadership, the Gavin Foundation grew from an initial 25 employees with a $2 million dollar budget to over 240 employees and a $27 million dollar budget--serving over 10,000 individuals each year. Throughout his tenure, John had a unique ability to foresee changes and prepare the organization for the future. It was John who made the decision to utilize electronic medical records systems in the houses, an innovative and rare initiative for recovery homes. John always had his eye on the ever-changing recovery landscape and prepared the organization for anticipated challenges and growth. In 2008, the Charlestown Recovery Home became a part of the Gavin Foundation. In 2015, the Hamilton House recovery home joined the Gavin family and with the courageous assistance of Mayor Tom Koch, Gavin Quincy was established the same year, offering a 64-bed intensive detox and clinical stabilization program.

Most recently, in response to a longtime goal of the Gavin Foundation board, and with the generous support of Jack and Eileen Connors and others, John launched a capital campaign to fund and then open Eileen's House, the organization's first recovery home for adult women.

In addition to his work with Gavin, John has been a trusted advisor to leadership at every level of government. His excellent judgment, advice and counsel has been instrumental in advancing addiction recovery policies at the federal, state and local levels. He has given his time and talent to numerous boards, committees and commissions across the state.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a person in this chamber who hasn't suffered in some way the incredible loss and grief associated with addiction. The heartbreak has been shared across our Nation. John McGahan is one of those rare individuals who has walked in a dark place but has used that experience to shine a light for others to follow. He has dedicated his life to help others lift themselves out of the clutch of addiction and share in the blessings of sobriety and recovery. His life has been an extraordinary example. He is a humble leader who is admired, respected and indeed loved.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss indeed if I failed to acknowledge that John Patrick McGahan has the great good fortune to have the unconditional love and support of his wife Anne and his sons Will and Sean. He has had their love at every step of his life journey.

John Patrick McGahan's legacy is one of relentless compassion in service to the Massachusetts recovery community, the cities of Boston and Quincy and to his family. It is my distinct privilege to take the floor of the House today to join the Gavin Foundation, Mr. McGahan's family and his many friends in recognizing his retirement, and to thank him for his incredible service on behalf of some of our most vulnerable citizens.

I thank John McGahan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Edgar ``Eddie'' Peter Guaraldi, in recognition of his 100th birthday and with the deepest appreciation for his courageous service to our Nation during World War II and his many contributions to the Brockton community.

Eddie was born in Bourne, Massachusetts on June 29, 1924, to John and Angelina Zambelli. Along with his siblings Yober ``Bert,'' Yolanda, and Lillian Guaraldi, Eddie lived in Bourne and Springfield before moving to Brockton. He graduated from Brockton High School in 1941 and worked at a shipyard for ten months before enlisting in the United States Army.

Eddie served his country with pride and distinction from March 1942 to December 1945 as a Sergeant and member of the 296th Combat Engineer Battalion, Company C. He fought in five major battles, including the Battle of Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, and battles in northern France, Rhineland, and Central Europe. Mr. Guaraldi landed on Omaha Beach during the Normandy Landings on D-Day and was part of the liberation of Buchenwald--courageous acts that later earned him the European Campaign Medal and the French Legion of Honour Medal.

Eddie met the love of his life, Rose Marie Altieri on New Year's Eve in 1947. They married in Brockton on October 12, 1950. The couple raised two sons, E. Peter Guaraldi, Jr. and John Joseph Guaraldi. Eddie and Marie doted on their grandson, Peter James Guaraldi, throughout his childhood.

After his service, Mr. Guaraldi attended school to be a radio and electronic technician, eventually getting a job at Central Radio in Brockton. There, he fixed televisions and installed antennae, with the desire to open his own business. In 1951, that dream came true as Eddie opened Community Television in Brockton, running the family business for 44 years before working part-time alongside his eldest son until the age of 80.

Eddie was very involved in the South Shore and Brockton communities. For decades, he was a longtime volunteer and communicant at his local church Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Brockton. His volunteering at the Brockton Kids Road Races at D.W. Field Park for nearly 15 years helped make a positive impact on thousands of children and aspiring athletes. Mr. Guaraldi was also a regular at various veterans' meetings and events hosted by the Brockton VA Medical Center, and the Whitman Veterans of Foreign War Post, among others.

He and Marie were known for their love of travel, visiting many places around the world, including Europe, China, Japan, and South America.

Eddie is a man of many hobbies and talents, particularly his ability to repair electronics, appliances, and anything else his family needs fixing. He looks forward to supporting his favorite team, the New England Patriots, every Sunday during football season.

Mr. Speaker, Edgar ``Eddie'' Peter Guaraldi's legacy is one of committed service to his country, and his community, and most importantly, his family. It is my distinct privilege to join Mr. Guaraldi's family and friends in recognizing his 100th birthday and to thank him for his service on behalf of a grateful Nation.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding.

As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5403, the so-called CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act.

At the expense of U.S. global economic leadership, this misguided legislation would effectively prevent the Federal Reserve from researching or issuing a central bank digital currency, also known as a

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, I have been a Member of Congress for over 20 years, and I have to say that while this may not be the worst, it is in the top three in terms of the worst bills that I have seen actually progress to the floor of the House.

Anybody who is excited about this bill either has not read it or does not understand it. This bill is a radical rewrite of the securities laws in this country.

As most people who know our history realize, in 1929, when the markets crashed, we established the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1934, shortly after the crash.

What that did was it created an agency that became the cop on the beat in financial services. They became the protectors of investors.

Since that time in 1934, as courts have interpreted that law that is protecting investors, we built up a body of case law that now makes the United States financial markets the most robust, and they have become the marvel of the world. Everyone comes to the United States for investment because they know that their investment is protected and that they will be treated fairly in the courts because we have well- defined laws.

This bill undoes all of that. This bill is a radical rewriting of the securities laws since 1934. It redefines what a security is. It allows financial companies to escape the cop on the beat. Now, they can leave the jurisdiction of the SEC and go over to the CFTC, which is about six times as small as the SEC.

What will happen here is you will see a migration of companies going out from under the SEC jurisdiction over to the CFTC, and this will cause havoc in our financial markets eventually.

The one amendment I would have liked to see on this bill is that any company that becomes insolvent because of their involvement with crypto cannot receive a taxpayer bailout because that is where this bill is heading. This is going to cause infirmity in the financial institutions in this country as they get commingled with crypto, and eventually, we will be forced into a situation where we are going to have to bail some of these banks out because of their involvement in crypto.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very bad bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 109.

This misguided resolution would eliminate the Securities and Exchange Commission's Staff Accounting Bulletin 121. This nonbinding, interpretive guidance advises companies that are holding crypto assets in custody for customers to record those assets as liabilities on their balance sheets. It also recommends that companies disclose the nature and the amount of their crypto-asset holdings. Simply put, it advises caution and transparency regarding crypto because it is so volatile.

The disapproval of SAB 121 would have severe consequences in the U.S. financial services industry and be especially dangerous for banks, depositors, investors, and consumers. As underscored in the bulletin, the safeguarding of crypto assets presents unique technological, regulatory, and legal risks that could significantly impact a company's financial condition and its operations. For this same reason, the bulletin seeks to ensure that investors are informed about these risks in making investment and other capital allocation decisions.

The failure of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, First Republic Bank, and others have shown us that nervous depositors can cause a run on bank assets when crypto assets become unstable. They can also move money in the blink of an eye, which makes these banks less stable and subject to failure.

With the collapse of FTX, the violation of Federal anti-money laundering and sanctions laws by Binance, and legal issues facing several other crypto companies, Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 serves to protect investors.

Crypto is now in its 17th year, yet the primary use cases for crypto continue to be money laundering, tax avoidance, cybercriminal ransomware payments, and terrorist finance.

Regrettably, crypto has become a truly perfect example of a textbook case of an elegant idea that is being continually savaged by an ugly gang of facts.

Regrettably, the Republican leadership's efforts to curtail SEC regulation in the crypto sector are now even extending to staff bulletins that are simply advisory and designed to publicize staff views regarding accounting-related disclosure practices.

This resolution also undermines the practice of issuing Staff Accounting Bulletins for the benefit of small investors and firms that may not have the resources to engage directly with the SEC and obtain an individual opinion or advice.

As ranking member of the Digital Assets Subcommittee for the House Financial Services Committee, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on National Security, I rise in strong support of aid for a free and independent Ukraine. I also stand in solidarity with the more than 37 million Ukrainian people who have never relented in their fight for freedom in the face of more than 2 years of state-sponsored terrorism launched by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This past weekend, the Commander in Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces reported that with U.S. assistance depleted, Ukrainian army positions along the country's 600-mile eastern border have ``worsened significantly in recent days.''

With Ukrainian soldiers facing a critical munitions shortage, Russian troops are currently firing 10 artillery rounds for every Ukrainian round. Until the prolonged impasse on Ukraine funding here in Congress, the United States was the primary ammunition supplier for the Ukrainian army. Now, the top American military commander in Europe describes the situation succinctly when he says: ``If one side can shoot and the other side can't shoot back, the side that can't shoot back loses.'' It is as simple as that.

Ukraine's air and missile defense systems are also similarly depleted. In reference to a recent Russia air strike targeting a key power plant in the Kyiv region, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy indicated that Ukraine simply ran out of the missiles necessary to defend its critical energy infrastructure.

Russia, in fact, has taken full tactical advantage of escalating lapses in the Ukrainian air defenses, launching aerial offenses against almost every power plant in the country.

Not surprisingly, Russian troops are continuing to advance in the Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine, a primary goal of Vladimir Putin. Russia has brutally bombarded the city of Myrnohrad, also known as the City of Peace, and is now well-positioned to capture the strategic town of Chasiv Yar, whose high ground will enable Russian forces to launch direct offensives against the last Ukrainian strongholds in the east.

Meanwhile, over 40 percent of Ukraine's civilian population--or nearly 15 million people--are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance. The United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine reports that the country endured a 20 percent increase in civilian casualties and injuries last month over February of 2024, with double the number of children killed or injured.

Moreover, large-scale coordinated attacks on Ukraine's civilian energy infrastructure destroyed or damaged 20 energy facilities across the country, leaving millions without electricity and running water.

According to the Global Rights Compliance, an international human rights organization that is assisting the Ukrainian Government investigating and prosecuting Russia war crimes, ``The stark reality is that more and more Ukrainians are dying by the day as the Ukraine aid package remains stalled in Congress.''

After several months of refusing to even consider aid for Ukraine, Speaker Johnson is now indicating that he plans to bring up a foreign package as soon as this week. Unfortunately, the House Republican majority is still playing politics with a matter of grave

importance to the Ukrainian people and democracy globally, going to great lengths to craft legislation designed to appease an extreme faction of the Republican Conference.

This political gamesmanship continues even though the United States Senate passed a bipartisan foreign aid package more than 2 months ago that I believe would easily pass this House with the necessary support from Members on both sides of the aisle.

We have reached a new low in this Congress. It is totally unthinkable throughout our history that a Republican Member of this House would attack a democratic ally and support a gangster and a war criminal like Vladimir Putin, but that is where we are today.

Ukrainian President Zelenskyy recently stated that the United States Congress needs to think twice about pushing these political matters with regard to supporting Ukraine and vote to support all of the countries whose lives depend upon it. I strongly agree. I urge the House Republican leadership to take up the Senate bill and ensure that Ukraine and our other international allies like Israel will receive the support they urgently need.

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on National Security, I rise in strong support of our international ally, Ukraine, and the more than 37 million Ukrainians who remain determined to defend their independence in the face of more than 2 years of state-sponsored terrorism at the hands of Vladimir Putin's Russia.

In submitting his annual budget request to Congress just yesterday, President Biden again appealed for immediate emergency funding for Ukraine--a request the administration first made back in October of 2023. According to the President, absent congressional action on this emergency request, the United States will not be able to continue to provide support to Ukraine to meet their battlefield needs as they defend against Russian attacks each and every day.

Ukrainian armed forces are already enduring the direct impact of this congressional impasse on Ukraine aid. While Russia is dropping guided bombs on Ukraine's positions and firing 10,000 artillery shells per day, Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines have been left to ration munitions and other critical supplies.

It is not surprising that the past several weeks have witnessed the fall of the strategic Ukrainian city of Avdiivka and additional Russian advances in eastern Ukraine. Only through their steadfast will and courage have the Ukrainian people been able to effectively resist the brutal Russian onslaught.

Beyond the battlefield, the United Nations and the World Bank recently estimated that the total cost of reconstruction in Ukraine and recovery after 2 years of war now stands at almost $500 billion.

Russian attacks against Ukrainian civilian population centers have caused devastation and loss of life and damage across several critical areas, including the housing, energy, and transportation sectors. Moreover, nearly 40 percent of the Ukrainian population, or almost 15 million people, are in dire need of basic humanitarian assistance.

Last month, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan national security funding bill that includes more than $62 billion in security and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine. Inexplicably, the House Republican leadership has refused to consider this legislation, even though I believe the majority of Members have indicated that they would vote for it.

The House Republican leadership is also sitting on bipartisan legislation that would provide President Biden with the authority to confiscate and transfer frozen Russian Central Bank assets to Ukraine for its reconstruction. The bill would also establish an international framework to facilitate the transfer of Russian assets frozen in other Western countries. In total, $300 billion worth of foreign holdings that Russia stashed across the globe could immediately be diverted to support the Ukrainian people.

Importantly, President Biden and his administration have already expressed support for this transfer of funding. As underscored by Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen's statement to the G20 world leaders last month: ``This would be a decisive response to Russia's unprecedented threat to global stability.''

It would `` . . . support Ukraine's continued resistance and long- term reconstruction.''

There is also a precedent for such action. In 2003, the U.S. seized $1.7 billion in frozen Iraqi Government assets under Saddam Hussein and transferred those funds toward the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Madam Speaker, Vladimir Putin once said: ``The borders of Russia do not end anywhere.'' He recently threatened the ``destruction of civilization'' and warned NATO countries that the consequences for potential interventionists will be much more tragic.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge the House Republican leadership to act on these bills before it is too late for the Ukrainian people and U.S. national security. Our democratic allies around the world hang in the balance.