[Pages H2014-H2021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2240, IMPROVING LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER SAFETY AND WELLNESS THROUGH DATA ACT; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2243, LEOSA REFORM ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2255, FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SERVICE
WEAPON PURCHASE ACT OF 2025

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 405 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 405

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House any bill specified in
section 2 of this resolution. All points of order against
consideration of each such bill are waived. The respective
amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary now printed in each such bill
shall be considered as adopted. Each such bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions

[[Page H2015]]

in each such bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on each such bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. The bills referred to in the first section of this
resolution are as follows:
(a) The bill (H.R. 2240) to require the Attorney General to
develop reports relating to violent attacks against law
enforcement officers, and for other purposes.
(b) The bill (H.R. 2243) to amend title 18, United States
Code, to improve the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act and
provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by
law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.
(c) The bill (H.R. 2255) to allow Federal law enforcement
officers to purchase retired service weapons, and for other
purposes.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger
Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule providing for
consideration of three pieces of legislation--H.R. 2240, H.R. 2243, and
H.R. 2255--which will all be considered under a closed rule, each with
1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective
designees. Additionally, the rule provides each with a motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are here in Washington this week to continue
to work on behalf of the American people. This is, in fact, Police
Week, but we have been busy this year, this Congress delivering for the
American people.
In this Congress so far, we have passed legislation to secure our
elections, H.R. 222, the SAVE Act; hold rogue activist judges
accountable, H.R. 1526; bring transparency to institutes of higher
education, H.R. 1048; make changes to our border with the Laken Riley
Act and the HALT Fentanyl Act; and to repeal the Biden-era harmful
environmental regulations by passing what we call Congressional Review
Acts to undo the damage of the Biden administration.
As Republicans continue to work on behalf of the American people and
finalize the reconciliation products we are working on currently, we
are also here to recognize National Police Week and the thousands of
law enforcement officers who wake up every day to step on that thin
blue line to defend and protect us.
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation which
designated May 15 as Peace Officer Memorial Day, and the week in which
that date falls as Police Week.
Yesterday, my staff and I got the opportunity to welcome police
officers from New Braunfels, Texas, and hear about the challenges they
face every day. I talk to the men and women in blue virtually every day
in the district that I represent, as I know many of my colleagues do.
My grandfather was the chief of police of a small west Texas town
called Sweetwater. I was blessed to work in the United States
Attorney's office and the Office of the Attorney General of the State
of Texas, working every day with law enforcement. What they do matters
for the peace and security of our country. Our Republic depends on
having security on our streets.
There are thousands of stories that I can share about the daily
heroism of law enforcement officers across the country, hundreds I
could share even in the district I represent.
On February 16, 2024, Austin Police Department officers Dalton
Schroeder and Jason Wright responded to 4-year-old William Martinez
Romero, who was choking. The officers quickly jumped into action. Body
cam footage shows Officer Schroeder run to his cruiser to grab an
antichoking device he bought with his own money to be prepared for
situations just like this, while Officer Wright started supporting
William with back blows. They saved his life that day.
We must also remember that Police Week honors fallen peace officers,
including one officer who died in the line of duty, Austin Police
Department Senior Officer Jorge Pastore died in action November 11,
2023, responding to a domestic violence call in South Austin. Hostages
were held inside a home, and when officers attempted to enter, gunfire
started to go off. The SWAT team was called in to help distract the
suspect, one being Officer Pastore, who was trying to rescue the
victims.
I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say we couldn't be
more excited to welcome tens of thousands of law enforcement officers
from around the country to D.C. this week.
Let's be clear: House Republicans and President Trump are mobilized
to restore order and sanity in the United States, something that had
been lacking for years.
I remember the days, as I know my colleagues do, in 2020 when there
were fires and destruction rampant across the country, as our cities
were being burned to the ground and law enforcement was being targeted.
It was unacceptable.

There are Members of this body, my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle, who were encouraging it. They were undermining our law
enforcement officers, making it more difficult for them to carry out
their jobs, who were challenging them. It was important that we stood
by them, and it is important now that the President and Republicans are
standing by our law enforcement officers.
Americans suffered due to the amplification of that extreme rhetoric
against law enforcement. The homicide rates stayed significantly higher
through 2022 after massively skyrocketing in the wake of 2020.
The rule before us today is another step in helping law enforcement
officers across the Nation which, after 4 years of a Biden-run
Department of Justice targeting police departments, should be a welcome
relief to our men and women in blue.
This week we will consider three pieces of legislation to support our
brothers and sisters in law enforcement. H.R. 2255, the Federal Law
Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025, which would
allow Federal law enforcement officers the opportunity to purchase the
service weapons they used before obtaining a new one; H.R. 2243, the
LEOSA Reform Act, which amends the Gun-Free School Zones Act to provide
an exemption for law enforcement officers certified under the Law
Enforcement Officers Safety Act to carry a concealed firearm in a gun-
free school zone; and H.R. 2240, Improving Law Enforcement Officer
Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, which would require the Attorney
General to submit a report to Congress that includes data on attacks on
law enforcement.
These bills are widely supported by law enforcement groups. The
Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, Federal Law
Enforcement Officers Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association,
Major County Sheriffs of America, National Association of Police
Organizations, National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition,
and Sergeants Benevolent Association of the NYPD sent a letter on March
25, 2025, to the House Judiciary Committee urging support of these
bills and advancement to the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1215

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, as every day, I stand in honor of our police and
our law enforcement. I often say to those who serve that to serve is an
act of love. I recognize the love of those who step up to put their
lives on the line and to put their lives in a place of danger to
protect us. I honor that service and that love.
Today, like last night, I heard an outrageous lie about which party
supports law enforcement. Let's look at

[[Page H2016]]

the facts. Republican President Donald Trump's proposed budget will
slash funding for the ATF and Drug Enforcement Administration, fire FBI
employees, wipe out community policing grants, and gut civil rights
enforcement.
Trump's budget doesn't support local law enforcement. It hurts them.
In my rural district, local law enforcement actually needs more
support. I am outraged when Republicans say Federal help is
duplicative, which is what they said last night in the Rules Committee.
I have spoken with the police officers and sheriffs who traverse
thousands of miles of bumpy rural roads in my district. Rio Arriba
County, for example, is bigger than the State of Connecticut, yet it
has fewer than two dozen police officers.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what helps a small, rural police department
like Rio Arriba? Do you know what the sheriffs need? They need support
from the FBI and Federal law enforcement. FBI comes in and helps them
solve crimes.
Tribal law enforcement also relies on the FBI. Tribal leaders
frequently describe the long wait times for police to arrive and the
countless criminal investigations left unsolved because there aren't
enough FBI agents.
Mr. Speaker, when you cut funding for the FBI, as Republican
President Trump proposes in his budget, you are not cutting duplicative
funding. You are cutting essential investigative services. It is a
guarantee that crimes will go unsolved.
The partnership between law enforcement agencies at all levels is
critical to keep our communities safe. From the sheriff in Rio Arriba
to the Capitol Police officers right outside these doors, each plays an
important role. Unfortunately, not everybody respects all of our law
enforcement officers.
In this very building, January 6 insurrectionists brutally attacked
the Capitol Police and law enforcement officers from multiple
jurisdictions. More than 140 police suffered injuries and went to the
hospital. Five officers died. Then, President Trump pardoned the
violent thugs who battered those police officers. It is a shame.
Every day, we walk by our dedicated Capitol Police, yet very few
Republicans have the courage to condemn the pardons of the violent
thugs who beat the police. Last night during Rules, we couldn't even
get a Republican who is a former prosecutor to condemn the pardons--
more shame. If Republicans truly backed the blue, they would all
denounce those pardons.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Texas condemned those
pardons. Is he willing to do so now?
Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to what Americans are focused on right
now and what the thousands of callers to congressional offices,
Republican and Democratic, are worried about. It is Republican cuts to
Medicaid.
This is a big week for Republicans. As reported in Punchbowl, it is
their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cut Medicaid.
This week in the dead of night while America was sleeping, Republican
committees took a sledgehammer to lifesaving programs like Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what is happening. Democrats fought all
night to save 8.6 million Americans from losing access to Medicaid.
That doesn't include the 4.2 million Americans who will start paying a
whole lot more for their healthcare premiums so big corporations can
get their tax deductions.
Republicans voted down every single amendment that Democrats offered
to protect Medicaid. Let me remind everybody that in more than 25
districts, more than a third of the constituents rely on Medicaid. That
includes Republican Nick Begich's and Robert Bresnahan's districts.
Not a single Republican had the courage to stand up for their
constituents.
The people are showing up in our offices to demand that Republicans
listen to them. Some are protesting in their wheelchairs.
Yesterday, I spoke to a disabled woman named Julie outside the
committee markup. Thirty-five years ago, Julie crawled up the House
steps to demand that Congress pass the Americans with Disabilities Act.
She is now back to beg for the bare minimum. She told me that she
doesn't trust Republicans to protect her healthcare. Based on their
votes, she is right.
Congress listened to her plea 35 years ago. Now, the wealthy
interests and Trump's pressure are just too much. Republicans won't
listen to a word from Julie or the 80 disabled advocates who came with
her. She and other advocates are asking them to protect Medicaid and to
protect the services they need. Even though they are in wheelchairs,
they are not voiceless and will show up with their power. If that
doesn't break our hearts, I don't know what will.
We have a broken system that prioritizes the wealthy, corruption, and
loyalty to President Trump over the health and well-being of people
like Julie. There are 8.6 million people who will suffer because
Republicans took their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to cut Medicaid.
Republicans may be gleeful, but Americans will be tearful. Remember,
congressional Republicans will lie over and over and say this is about
rooting out fraud. No, it is not. It is about giving permanent tax cuts
to the oligarchs. In fact, the top 20 percent of income earners will
get 68 percent of the benefits in their bill.
Make no mistake that people will die as a result of these cuts.
Families will suffer. Many will go broke thanks to medical bills, while
millionaires get money for more yachts. Do they really need any more
yachts?
Mr. Speaker, getting back to law enforcement, do you know the other
things that sheriffs in my district need to respond to crime and to
keep people alive? They need rural hospitals. When Republicans strip
$715 billion from Medicaid, no matter how they try to paint that pig,
they will be eliminating rural hospitals and emergency rooms.
When they do that, police officers in rural areas in places like
Chama, New Mexico, in my district will have to drive 1\1/2\ to 2 hours
to the nearest emergency room. Ask any first responder: The quicker
somebody gets to an emergency room, the more likely they are to
survive. When life or death is a matter of minutes, what Republicans
are doing this week is deadly.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so
concerned about crime in the country that the parting shot of Joe Biden
on January 19 was to commute the sentences of 2,500 Federal defendants
he claimed were ``convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.''
Let's look at that. We have a situation where he reduced the sentence
of a Buffalo man, Lairon Graham, 67. In 2023, he was convicted of
organizing and heading a drug conspiracy to sell fentanyl, crack
cocaine, and heroin. When police raided his home, they found fentanyl,
crack, and cash. He also possessed a firearm. In addition to heading up
the drug gang, Graham was also convicted of sex trafficking by force or
coercion from 2013 to 2021.
Of course, this is on top of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle wanting to defend a Maryland man for being sent overseas after
the guy was clearly moving people illegally, beating his girlfriend and
wife, violating our laws, and here illegally. That is who they want to
defend.
There are numerous other examples. Jaron Ruth, another Buffalo
native, pleaded guilty in 2019 to selling drugs over a period of 3
years and possessing firearms. He had been charged with shooting a man
in the chest during a burglary of the victim's home.
These are the kind of folks that Joe Biden was commuting as he exited
stage left. We had another situation where he commuted the sentence of
a gentleman who left prison after Biden commuted his sentence in the
killing of two FBI agents. Is that who my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle think they ought to be defending?
Can they answer the question of commuting the sentences of these
violent criminals and putting them out on the streets, just as they
voted against every measure we put forward to defend our borders and to
stop the death and destruction of American citizens like Laken Riley or
like Jocelyn Nungaray or those who have died at the hands of dangerous
criminal cartels and gangs in our country?

[[Page H2017]]

What President Trump is doing is restoring the rule of law. What
Republicans are doing is standing up in defense of law enforcement
because we stand up in defense of the rule of law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Fine).
Mr. FINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) for
the opportunity to speak today, and I think 4 minutes will turn out to
be an appropriate amount of time.
My colleague on the other side talked about the nature of things
being deadly. I would like to talk about that.
On April 17, less than 1 month ago, at 11:56 in the morning, a
shooter carrying a gun walked onto the campus of Florida State
University and began to shoot students and adults. It was a gun crime
that we would all agree was horrific.
Mr. Speaker, I am new in this place. I only got elected here a month
ago. What I will tell you of my observation of my first 4 weeks of
being here is I hear a lot of canned speeches that don't actually
address the bills and issues that the American people have sent us here
to work on. I think it is why we may be held, to some degree, in such
low regard.
During this shooting at 11:56 on April 17, seven people were shot.
Fortunately, five were not killed. We only know one of them. She was a
graduate student. The other names have not been released. In that
shooting, two were killed.
Robert Morales was 57 years old and a dining coordinator at Florida
State. Tiru Chabba was a vice president at the food service company at
Florida State.
Why do I tell this story? Law enforcement at Florida State did
everything right. They rushed to the scene. They subdued the shooter.
Mr. Speaker, do you know how long it took them to do that? It took them
4 minutes, the amount of time that I will speak here today. In those 4
minutes, with law enforcement doing everything, seven people were shot,
and two were killed.
H.R. 2243 would say that if any one of them were a retired or an off-
duty law enforcement officer, they could have protected themselves.
When these horrific things happen, the fact of the matter is that it
will take law enforcement time to get there. Mr. Speaker, the only way
for you to defend yourself is for you to do it.
I am not saying that, had that bill passed, these seven people
wouldn't have been shot. I don't know if there was retired law
enforcement there. I don't know that any of these people were that.
I know that when shooters consider the places that they are going to
go, one of the things they think about is what might be the response.
When we tell people who have spent their entire careers and who are
trained--not just anyone but someone who for their entire career gave
themselves selflessly to protect us all, when we tell that person
because they are off-duty, because they are retired, all of that
service is no longer useful, we needlessly put people at risk.

I don't want another shooting like we had at Florida State. God
forbid, if there ever is another one, I want people there to respond. I
am grateful to the law enforcement officers who took longer to get
there than my speech will take, but I worry about what will happen next
time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Bacon for bringing this bill
forward. I thank Representative Roy for giving me the opportunity to
speak. We were told we should stand up for our citizens in this
process. When we stand up to keep them safe, that is exactly what we
are doing.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am really wondering what kind of people they want to
defend over there. Let's talk about those pardons. Let's talk about the
fact that this isn't something that happened over there. This happened
in this Capitol. Those violent offenders were violent before they got
there.
Let me talk about a couple of them. Do my colleagues want to defend
Steven Cappuccio? He was convicted of six felonies, including
assaulting a police officer.

{time} 1230

Mr. Speaker, he was together with David Dempsey. David Dempsey was
sentenced to 20 years. He stomped on a police officer's head, and he
struck an officer in the head with a metal crutch.
This is the kind of person the Republicans want to defend.
Enrique Tarrio, a former national leader of the Proud Boys and a
domestic terrorist, was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Guy Reffitt, somebody who brought a gun, zip ties, and body armor,
was pardoned by Donald Trump.
Not only that, they have gone after their pardons, and they haven't
stopped the criminal spree.
A Houston man was pardoned by Trump and then arrested on sex charges.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an
article titled: ``Houston man pardoned by Trump arrested on child sex
charge.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.

Houston Man Pardoned by Trump Arrested on Child Sex Charge

(By Robert Downen, Feb. 6, 2025)

Andrew Taake received a six-year sentence for assaulting
officers on Jan. 6. He was arrested Thursday on an
outstanding charge of soliciting a minor.
A Houston man who was recently pardoned by President Donald
Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection has been
arrested on an outstanding child sex crimes charge.
Andrew Taake, 36, was taken into custody on Thursday after
spending more than two weeks as a fugitive, the Harris County
District Attorney's Office said. He had previously been
charged with online solicitation of a minor stemming from a
2016 incident in which he allegedly sent sexually explicit
messages to an undercover law enforcement officer who was
posing as a 15-year-old girl.
Taake was among the roughly 1,600 people, including 120
Texans, who were charged for their roles in the U.S. Capitol
riot, which ultimately resulted in five deaths, injuries to
140 police officers, at least $2.8 million in damage and
roughly 1,575 federal criminal cases.
Federal prosecutors said Taake used bear spray and a metal
whip to assault officers, and that he was caught after
bragging about the incident to a woman he met on an online
dating app. Screenshots of his messages to the woman, who
later alerted law enforcement, show that he sent a selfie of
himself to the woman that he said was taken ``about 30
minutes'' after the incident, according to court records.
In June, he was sentenced to six years in prison after
pleading guilty in 2023, but was released from federal prison
in Colorado following Trump's sweeping Jan. 20 pardon of
those charged for partaking in the melee.
Taake's release was condemned by Harris County District
Attorney Sean Teare, who said that his office had faxed a
copy of Taake's outstanding warrant to the Federal Bureau of
Prisons five days before he was pardoned. After about two
weeks on the lam, Taake was located and arrested at a
residence in Leon County, Texas, the Harris County DA said
Thursday.
Trump has referred to Jan. 6 defendants as ``patriots'' and
``hostages,'' and said his mass pardon ends a ``grave
national injustice that has been perpetrated upon the
American people.'' He and other Republicans have sought to
frame the riot as a peaceful protest, and those charged for
their roles as political prisoners.
But many--including at least 37 Texans--were charged with
assault or other violent crimes. Others were members of
extremist groups or militias, including Stewart Rhodes, the
former Granbury resident and leader of the OathKeepers
militia who was sentenced to 18 years in federal prison after
a jury found him guilty of seditious conspiracy. Dozens more,
including Taake, had prior convictions or pending charges for
crimes such as rape, sexual abuse of a minor, domestic
violence or production of child sexual abuse meterial, NPR
reported last month.
Of the nearly 1,575 people charged in the riot, two-thirds
pleaded guilty and roughly 250 were convicted by a judge or
jury, according to NPR. Only four defendents were acquitted
of all charges, and fourteen had their cases dismissed.
Texans played key roles in the insurrection. They helped
craft Trump's attempts to overturn election rsults and were
crucial to mainstreaming baseless election fraud
conspiricies. On Jan. 6, a Texan was the first person to
break into the Capitol, and Texas lawmakers have been among
the loudest defenders of the riot and those involved in it.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. This happens over and over again. They seem
unwilling to stand up for the Capitol Police whom they walk by every
day.
They refuse to put up the plaque that is, by law, honoring them.
I wonder if they ever even say: I am sorry. I am sorry that President
Trump pardoned the people who beat you.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Frost).
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I think it is really interesting that one of
my colleagues from Florida just brought up a

[[Page H2018]]

terrible mass shooting that happened at Florida State University, which
is horrible. Part of the reason I ran for Congress is to end gun
violence.
When he brought up the shooting, I thought it was interesting because
he left out one of the most important parts. He brought up that he
never wants to see one of these shootings happen again, but he left out
how the shooter got his gun.
The shooter got his gun from his stepmother, and it was a retired
service weapon that was not kept in a safe way. He stole the gun, the
retired service weapon, from his stepmother, and then he went to
Florida State University and murdered two people and wounded six
others.
Mr. Speaker, I bet you that that same gentleman who talked about that
shooting is going to vote ``yes'' later on H.R. 2255 which I deeply
oppose.
Just 1 month later, after this former service weapon was used to
carry out a mass shooting and kill people at Florida State University,
Republicans here in Congress are pushing the Federal Law Enforcement
Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, which would flood the gun market
with even more former service weapons without any additional
precautions, zero safe storage and zero background checks. In every
State, a police officer would be able to purchase an older gun from
their department at a discounted price.
House Republicans would not even consider my amendment to encourage
caution by letting people hold law enforcement agencies accountable
with what is done with the weapon. The United States already has the
highest number of mass shootings in the world, and gun violence is the
leading cause of death for children in this country.
So I am glad that one of my Republican colleagues from Florida wants
to make sure that the shootings don't happen again.
Let's start by ensuring that we block this bill, H.R. 2255, so that
way police officers don't even have to respond to a mass shooting in
the first place. I am done with talking about how we are going to
handle these things after they happen. Let's talk about how we are
going to prevent these shootings from happening in the first place.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
What I would notice, Mr. Speaker, is that the gentleman complained
about not having the amendment considered, but he offered the amendment
about 1 hour before the Rules Committee met. So spare me the concern
about whether or not we are considering amendments when we don't have
the time to look at the amendment.
I would also note that when we are talking about these kinds of
people, I went through a list of folks whom President Biden had
commuted.
Here is another one. A Lubbock man, granted clemency by Biden, was
arrested. The sheriff was absolutely angry about the former
administration's decisions. The sheriff said that he felt angry after
he found out a convicted criminal was being released back on the
Lubbock streets early, that a convicted criminal is now back in law
enforcement custody after violating his supervised release.
These are the kinds of folks whom we are putting back out on the
streets, and we are having to arrest again the very people that
President Biden put back out.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
McGuire).
Mr. McGUIRE. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas, for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the three bills it
provides consideration for.
Since 2020 respect for law enforcement around our country has been on
the decline, and we have seen the effects this has had in our
communities.
We all know the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy
with a gun. In Chicago, criminals do not care about gun laws. They have
the strictest gun laws and the most gun violence by criminals who don't
care about gun laws. We need more good guys with guns on the street,
mostly because Biden's open-border policy brought more illegal
criminals into our country who are robbing, raping, and killing the
American people.
In November the American people responded to this lack of respect in
the polls. They elected the Republican majority in the House, the
Senate, and the President in the White House who truly believes in law
and order.
The three bills that the rule provides consideration for are
commonsense bills. If we entrust law enforcement officers to uphold the
laws of our Nation and risk their lives daily, then we should be able
to entrust them to carry their weapons unrestricted off duty and to
purchase their former service weapons.
Like many of my colleagues, I agree that we would not have a nation
without those we entrust in uniform, whether they serve in the
military, as first responders, or as law enforcement officers.
Mr. Speaker, these men and women aren't honorable because of the
badge they wear. They make the badge honorable because of the lives
they live.
Every time I return to my district, I meet with the sheriffs of the
24 counties, cities, and towns I represent and hear directly from them
about the troubles they face in the line of duty.
If we want to see safer streets and communities in our country, then
we must ensure that we give law enforcement every tool possible so that
they can make it through the day and return home safely.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I express my strong support for the rule and the
underlying bills that it allows consideration for.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H. Con. Res. 33.
This measure will ensure that the plaque honoring the brave police
officers who defended us on January 6 is hung in the Capitol as
required by law.
Mr. Speaker, you know it is Police Week, but Republicans for some
reason refuse to put up the plaque honoring the heroic efforts by U.S.
Capitol Police and other local and Federal law officers who defended us
and our democracy on January 6.
It is not a scary thing. The plaque looks like this.
Don't you agree, Mr. Speaker?
It is lovely. It recognizes their heroic efforts, and it is the law.
It was signed into law by the President that this plaque goes up.
What are they afraid of?
Why don't they want to honor the Capitol Police and other law
enforcement officers who were beaten and battered?
Why is their support for police conditional?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Crow), to speak more to this resolution.
Mr. CROW. Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate Police Week, I join my
colleagues in honoring law enforcement around the country and back home
in Colorado.
On Capitol Hill, the men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police protect
us and the seat of our democracy. I personally owe a great debt of
gratitude to these officers who responded to the attack on the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021.
Many of my colleagues and I were trapped right up there in the House
gallery that day as an insurrectionist mob converged on the Capitol.
Officers from the Capitol Police, Metropolitan Police Department, and
numerous other departments risked their lives to protect us and our
democracy.
As seen here, these officers were brutally assaulted with flag poles,
bear spray, stun guns, knives, and bats. Over 140 officers were wounded
and sustained injuries from the attack. Many still deal with the mental
and physical trauma from that day.
There were numerous officers who died from their injuries after the
attack: Officer Brian Sicknick, Officer Howard Liebengood, Officer
Jeffrey Smith, Officer Gunther Hashida, and Officer Kyle DeFreytag.
Congress, on a bipartisan basis, took a step to honor their
extraordinary bravery when we passed a law in 2022 directing the
placement of a plaque at the Capitol.
The plaque is complete. It is done. It has been sitting somewhere in
storage in the Capitol, and it is way past time that we display this
for America to see.
This Police Week let's honor the men and women who bravely risked
everything to do their duty to protect this House and to protect this
Capitol and our democracy.

[[Page H2019]]

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in doing the right thing.
It is time to display this plaque so Americans around the country who
visit the seat of this democracy will see and be able to join us in
honoring the bravery of those men and women from January 6, 2021.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would note that as we are considering this Police Week
and we are talking about the safety and security of our streets, I
would just note that two of our most dangerous States as measured by
violent crime and property crime rates are the States of New Mexico and
Colorado, which also happen to have Democrats controlling all levels of
power.
I would note that last summer, the good people of Aurora, Colorado,
were dealing with Tren de Aragua, who were engaging in violent
activities in apartment complexes and demonstrating the violence that
has led to the death of Americans, and the trafficking of dangerous
narcotics and fentanyl. They literally took over their homes. I met
with and talked to Cindy Romero from Aurora about what happened to her
in her home and that my Democratic colleagues weren't even
acknowledging that it was happening. They were just ignoring it.
Then Tren de Aragua moved to San Antonio and other places across the
country. I want to give a shout-out to the Texas Department of Public
Safety and all the great local law enforcement in Hays County, Texas.
That is because just literally last week they converged together with
the FBI to go identify and stop 47 individuals. Probably 14 of whom
were a part of Tren de Aragua from all over the country. They had come
into Austin to coordinate. They had drugs, narcotics, and children in a
home near where I live in Dripping Springs, Texas.
Thanks to law enforcement we now have removed at least four of those
individuals and are prosecuting others because we now have a law
enforcement community who knows that the President of the United States
is backing them, and a Republican House and a Republican Senate are
backing them.
Local law enforcement are being backed instead of having leftist
judges who are dismissing the crimes and putting dangerous criminals on
the streets. When Joe Biden commutes sentences and puts dangerous
criminals on the streets, the American people know who is actually
standing up for law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I find it incredibly ironic when my colleague talks
about President Trump backing law enforcement.
Last night in the Rules Committee, their Republican colleague, Mr.
Knott, noted that Republicans have not increased or passed legislation
for law enforcement in the 119th Congress.
When Republicans back law enforcement, they should actually be
passing the funding to support State law enforcement, to support that
collaboration and coordination. At the same time we are seeing that
Republicans are not saying a peep about the fact that President Trump
is cutting existing resources.

Not only does he plan to cut the budget for law enforcement, he is
cutting resources today. He has terminated $820 million worth of grants
for public safety. He has cut $169 million in funding for community
safety and violence reduction programs. He has cut $71.7 million in
grants to policing and prosecution programs, including longstanding
efforts to address violent crimes and acts of targeted violence.
It doesn't terminate there. The Trump administration terminated
grants for policing and prosecution, for victim services, for juvenile
justice and child protection, for substance abuse and mental health
treatment, for correction, and for protecting and serving the women who
have been raped and the children who have been abused. He has cut that
funding.
I have spoken to the women who are administering those programs and
who have called me in tears because the children they serve will not be
receiving those Federal grants.
Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to this issue of the pardons that my
colleague has referred to.
Once again, let's go back and think about how they have not objected
to the pardons of the January 6, nor have they called for putting up
the plaque to honor the law enforcement who served us that day.

{time} 1245

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, which I will propose if the previous
question is denied, along with any extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Espaillat), the chair of the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus, to discuss our proposal.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, both Democrats and Republicans should be
forever grateful to the police officers who protected this Capitol as
an angry, racist, violent mob came in. We will forever remember the 140
officers who were injured and the five officers who lost their lives as
a result, including Brian Sicknick, a Capitol Police Officer; Howard
Liebengood, a Capitol Police Officer; and Metropolitan Police
Department Officers Jeffrey Smith, Gunther Hashida, and Kyle DeFreytag.
I am also grateful to those officers that testified in front of the
January 6th Committee, including Michael Fanone, Officer Harry Dunn,
Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell, and Officer Daniel Hodges.
It has been more than 2 years, Mr. Speaker--take a look at this
plaque--that the other side has failed to properly honor police
officers. Yet, they stand here and want to dictate to us how supportive
they are of the men and women in police departments across this
country. They have failed to put this plaque up to properly honor those
men and women that protected our lives as an angry, racist mob came
into this building and chanted: ``hang Mike Pence.'' Let's kill Nancy
Pelosi. That is what they intended to do, and you failed to recognize
the police officers that protected all of us, Democrat and Republican.
As the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, I am
more than willing to work with the Architect of the Capitol and
Republican leadership to make sure that we honor our police officers,
and this Police Week it is important that we do that.
What do we get from the White House? We get a pardon of very violent
people that wanted to hurt all of us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to say to the Republican
leadership that they must honor police officers in the proper way,
particularly those of them that gave their lives for us and the
American public. Let's do this. It has been years now since they
refused to do this, and yet they call themselves the party of law and
order.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, a vote on the previous question is
a vote to protect the police.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If we talk about standing up in defense of police, how can my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle say with a straight face that
that is what they want to do when we had one Democrat from New York who
said: I am not in favor of more police; I am actually in favor of
defunding the police. We had another Congresswoman from New York who
said: Defunding police means defunding police. I can go back, and the
Record is replete with examples of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle calling for defunding the police. In fact, one of my
colleagues from Texas was literally serving on the Austin City Council
when they cut $150 million out of the Austin Police Department's
budget, leaving their academy decimated, leaving them unable to field
911 calls, leaving violent crimes skyrocketing in the city of Austin,
because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were patently
clear about their desire to defund the police and

[[Page H2020]]

side with violent mobs in the summer of 2020, when our cities were
burning across the country.
Yes, we are standing up for the men and women in blue. Yes, we will
defend them, but, no, we are not going to blindly support grants that
are being used by NGOs to undermine the very police they are saying
they are trying to support. For example, one grant to an NGO that was
promoting prostitution and open borders, this is the kind of stuff that
the American people sent us here to stop. This is the kind of stuff
that they are proud of the President for using DOGE to identify and
stop.
Yes, we are trying to defund those particularly bad grant programs,
while we try to make sure that our local jurisdictions can fund police
properly and have judges that will actually put bad guys in jail
instead of letting them on the streets and a President that won't
commute the sentences of 2,500 people, dozens or hundreds of whom were
violent criminals and are now back out on the streets.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague has mentioned all kinds of words and ideas,
and he is putting all kinds of stuff out there, but he has not once
mentioned the plaque.
The previous question is: Will you honor the police who defended us
in this Chamber by doing a simple thing? That is putting up this
plaque.
Mr. Speaker, what counts on the floor of this House is your vote.
Let's look at what those votes have resulted in. Those votes say we
should honor the police who suffered when the insurrectionists beat
them, that we should honor the police who protected our democracy and
indeed protected every single one of us. Whether you are Republican or
Democrat, a House Member or a Senator, you were protected by the
police.
Are you willing to vote for this? If you vote against the previous
question, you are saying we will not do this simple act of respect.
Now, let's get to the idea of what did you actually vote on.

Democrats have the receipts. For fiscal year 2023, the last year that
Democrats wrote the appropriations bill, we increased funding for
grants to State and local law enforcement by $506 billion. All but nine
House Republicans voted against that bill.
Remember, it is not what you say. It is what you do. What did you
vote for? Democrats put forward bills to increase funding, and
Republicans voted against it.
We also increased funding for the FBI by half a billion dollars. I
already went through how important the FBI is for Tribal law
enforcement; how much our rural and local officers rely on them to do
the investigation. They have access to technology that our sheriffs do
not. The FBI supports law enforcement in Indian country.
We need these resources, and I am incredibly insulted when the
gentleman, my good friend from Texas, my neighbor, actually says of
local law enforcement that these programs are a waste. Go and talk to
the people who rely on them. They are not duplicative. They are not a
waste. They are essential.
Let me do just one last little fact check on that. When you look at
who has the most homicides and some of the highest crime rates, it is
indeed Republican States. Yes, it is unfortunate, and it is something
we need to work on. Democrats raise this issue all the time, but the
highest levels of crime and homicides are--let me go through those
States--Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, sadly, New Mexico, Missouri,
Arkansas, South Carolina. See a little trend there? It is actually
Republicans. Don't come and talk to us about that. It is dangerous to
live and work in many Republican-led States.
Let's get back to what we do to honor and respect law enforcement on
this Police Week.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
We have heard a lot of claims today, but here is what remains true.
Democrats support law enforcement, not just with words, but with
action, with our votes. We back them with funding, with resources, and,
importantly, with respect.
That is why, under Democratic leadership, we increased funding for
local and Federal law enforcement, including the very FBI that solves
crimes in our rural and Tribal communities.
We don't just say these things. We show up for law enforcement. We
stand with the Capitol Police who defended our democracy and our lives
on January 6. We honor their courage. We mourn those who died, and we
refuse to excuse the violent criminals who attacked them.
Unfortunately, too many of our Republican colleagues have chosen
loyalty to Donald Trump over loyalty to the truth and over loyalty to
the officers who keep us safe. You cannot say you support and respect
law enforcement and stay silent as Trump pardons the violent criminals
who battered the police on January 6. You can't say you support law
enforcement when you refuse to do something as simple as hanging a
plaque to honor their sacrifices.
While Republicans hold up empty slogans, Democrats fight for the
health and dignity of the American people. We fought all night long to
protect 8.6 million Americans from losing Medicaid, for the mother
caring for a child with disabilities. We fought to protect the senior
in rural New Mexico who has to drive hours just to see a doctor and
will have to drive hours more when their Medicaid cuts destroy our
world healthcare system. Why? So Republicans can hand out tax cuts to
billionaires.
Do the millionaires and billionaires you are protecting really need
more? They already have so much. They will drown and bury the veteran,
the pregnant mother, the disabled worker with paperwork while they will
just give away a bigger tax cut to the wealthiest among us. That just
doesn't seem fair.
Mr. Speaker, I say that this is about values. This is about who do
you value and what will you do when it actually comes down to vote?
Democrats value and choose to protect people like Julie, who crawled
up these Capitol steps 35 years ago to demand dignity and now returns
to beg us not to be forgotten. We are not forgetting her, and Democrats
will not stop fighting for her and for millions more.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROY. May I inquire how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 11\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of my Republican colleagues for bringing
forward legislation in support of our law enforcement community.
I am proud of the fact that, in fact, this President is trying to
focus resources where it will best provide security and safety on our
streets and back our law enforcement community to actually target
criminals, not fund ridiculous grants, not fund NGOs that are
undermining our security, the very NGOs that are perpetuating the open
borders; that are putting gangs in our communities, like TDA and MS-13,
that lead directly to the death of Americans, death of Americans like
Jocelyn Nungaray, like Laken Riley, like Rachel Morin, like Kayla
Hamilton; Americans that are no longer with us because of the policies
of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because of wide-open
borders, and because of tolerance of violent criminals, because of a
Democrat President who has let violent criminals out on the street and
commuted their sentences; because of radical leftist judges promoted by
those that fund my colleagues on the other side of the aisle; like
George Soros who have funded DAs that are letting criminals out on the
streets in cities like San Antonio and Austin that I represent; like my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that have defunded the police
time and time again and have defended that position.
For example, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said
that the defund the police movement is one of reimagining the current
police system to build an entity that does not violate us, while
relocating funds to invest in community services.

Another colleague said that the defund movement isn't new. Folks are
just finally listening.

[[Page H2021]]

Defund the police, said a Democrat colleague.
Defunding the police isn't radical. It is real, said a former
Democrat colleague and, as I said before, a colleague that literally
voted on the Austin City Council to strip $150 million out of the
police budget, leaving the Austin Police stranded, unable to do their
job and the people of Austin unable to get the services that they
deserve and pay taxes for, while their streets are made more violent
and while criminals are allowed to roam free under the very
aforementioned Soros DAs that refused to prosecute the criminals.

{time} 1300

Everybody in America knows what is going on. Everybody in America
gets the joke. They saw their cities burning in the summer of 2020.
They saw the reality of what happens when you allow these radical
Democratic policies to take root, and they want it to end.
They want common sense back. They want a President who will enforce
the law and an FBI that will target criminals instead of the American
people. They don't want to have a Federal Government that is weaponized
against them. They don't want them to be targeted.
They want violent criminals off the streets. They want violent gangs
off the streets. They want our borders to be secure. They want TDA out.
They want MS-13 out. They want fentanyl off their streets.
The only way you can do that is to actually back up the people trying
to enforce the law and actually stand with them in the enforcement of
the law, not turn around and let all the criminals back out on the
streets. Yet, that is what my colleagues perpetually want to do.
The fact of the matter is, the American people understand that this
President, this Republican House, this Republican Senate, and
Republican jurisdictions across the country stand for law enforcement.
They stand for order. That is what they want. That is what they sent us
here for.
We put together some bills this week that are focused on wishes of
the people, the men and women in blue, like my grandfather, who served
as chief of police in Sweetwater, Texas, and the many law enforcement I
was proud to serve with and alongside in the Office of the Attorney
General of Texas and in the United States Attorney's Office. We work
with them on a regular basis.
When you talk to them, they cannot do their jobs if the radical
leftist policies of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
allowed to continue to be perpetuated. You can't combat crime if you
put the criminals back on the streets. You can't combat crime if you
import criminals from dangerous prisons. You can't combat crime if your
law enforcement agencies are targeting American citizens for political
retribution rather than taking dangerous, violent criminals off the
streets.
I rise in support of these bills. I rise in support of the rule. The
legislation that we put forward will provide the value for our men and
women in uniform that they have asked for. They have asked for the
ability to keep the weapons that they had in service.
Why does that matter? I will tell you why it matters. My grandfather
that I mentioned before died in 1949 of cancer. When my dad, a 7-year-
old, had polio and my grandmother was a single mom in west Texas
raising him and did all the tough things, didn't ask for any handouts,
took two jobs, helped my dad go on to be the first to go to college--my
dad is 82 years old. He is still alive. He is 82 and still manages to
walk, barely.
My dad talks about his dad as a cop, and he pulls out his old .38,
the .38 revolver that my grandfather had in service. That means
something to the people who serve. It means something for them to be
able to carry that with them and take it with them. It is no small
thing.
Some of my colleagues dismiss it as not being important. I can tell
you it is important to the people who are out there serving because
they devote their lives to this cause.
When I take that .38 out of the safe and show it to my son, he is
holding the .38 that his great-grandfather held and carried with him
when he was policing the streets. I think that is a good thing.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as
follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 405 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New
Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 33) directing the
Architect of the Capitol to install at a permanent location
on the western front of the United States Capitol an
honorific plaque listing the names of all of the officers of
the United States Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police
Department of the District of Columbia, and other Federal,
State, and local law enforcement agencies and protective
entities who responded to the violence that occurred at the
United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. All points of order
against consideration of the concurrent resolution are
waived. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as
read. All points of order against provisions in the
concurrent resolution are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to
adoption without intervening motion except one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on House Administration or
their respective designees.
Sec 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H. Con. Res. 33.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________