we have, of course, have the supplemental and the assistance from the supplemental is on its way. in fact, some of it's already been delivered. but today i want to add to that by announcing that we will provide an additional $2 billion in foreign military financing for ukraine. and we put this together in a first of its kind defense fund. it has three components. one is to provide weapons today, so this will assist ukraine in acquiring those weapons. two is to focus as well on something that he just talked about, investing in ukraine's defense industrial base, helping to strengthen even more of its capacity to produce what it needs for itself, but also to produce for others. and finally using this fund to help ukraine -- the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. ordering the previous question on house

pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, following the first vote, there will be five-minute votes. house resolution 1227 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 76. house resolution 1227. resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 8369, to provide for the expeditious delivery of defense articles and defense services for israel and other matters. providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 7530, to limit youth offender status in the district of columbia to individuals 18 years of age or younger, to direct the attorney general of the district of columbia to establish and operate a publicly accessible website containing updated statistics on juvenile crime in

the district of columbia. to amend the district of columbia home rule act to prohibit the council of the district of columbia from enacting changes to existing criminal liability sentences and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 7343, to amend the immigration and nationality act to provide for the detention of certain aliens who commit assault against law enforcement officers. providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 8146, to require a report by the attorney general on the impact of the border crisis having on law enforcement at the federal, state, local and tribal level. providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 7581, to require the attorney general to develop reports relating to violent attacks against law enforcement officers and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 354, 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. providing for consideration of the resolution, house resolution 1213, a resolution regarding violence against law enforcement officers and providing for consideration of the resolution, house resolution 1210, condemning the biden border crisis and the tremendous burdens law enforcement officers face as a result. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 198.

the speaker pro tempore: this vote the nays are 212, the nays are 201. the previous question is ordered. question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say yea. those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair, the aryears have it.

m. mcgovern: i record a recorded vote -- i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is order. members will record their vote by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 212, the nays are 200. one voting present. the resolution is adopted. without objection, motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is to vote on the motion of the gentleman from missouri, mr. graves, to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 3935, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the total.

the clerk: h.r. 3935, an act to amend title 49 of the united states code to reauthorize and approve the federal aviation administration and other civil aviation programs for the purposes, senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 387, the nays are 26.

2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendment is agreed to, and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will remind all peppers in the tbalry that they are here -- gallery that they are here as guests of the house and any approval or disapproval of the proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members, take your conversations off the floor, please.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to their remarks and to insert extraneous materials -- to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials on h.r. 7343. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 1227 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the

committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 7343. the chair appoints the gentleman from idaho, mr. fulcher, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of. had r.7 -- of h.r. 7343. the clerk: a bill to amend the immigration and nationality act, to provide for the detention of certain aliens who commit assaults against law enforcement officers. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. the gentleman from new jersey, mr. van drew, and the gentleman from washington, mr. jayapal, each will -- ms. jayapal, each will control 30 minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. van drew. mr. van drew: mr. chair, i yield to myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van drew: thank you, mr. chair. my bill, the detain and deport illegal aliens who assault cops act, send as simple but clear message. if an illegal alien assaults our law enforcement officers, they will be detained and they will be deported. this is because these actions must have consequences. now, that seems like a pretty commonsense life lesson that most of us learn at a very early age. but it is a lesson unfortunately that president biden and secretary mayorkas apparently never have learned. in less than 3 1/2 years, president biden has released nearly 4.9 million illegal

aliens into the united states. that doesn't include the gotaways. that doesn't include a whole lot. and in most cases we don't even know who these people are. we don't even know where they're going. we don't even know their intentions once they are here, mr. chair. the biden administration's policies are reckless, those policies are dangerous. and these policies have very real life consequences, particularly for american law enforcement. here's just a couple of examples. in march, 2023, an illegal alien violently assaulted a u.s. border patrol agent as the agent attempted to take in the alien -- take the alien into custody, injuring the agent's face and his arms. in november, 2022, the f.b.i. arrested two illegal aliens for

pushing, dragging and punching a u.s. border patrol agent. now the chaos at the southwest border is spreading into communities, towns and cities throughout the united states of america and there is no end in sight. take this example. just this past january, just one example, according to the new york post quote, as many as 14 migrants were believed to have been involved in a brutal beatdown, a brutal beatdown, end quote, of two nypd officers in time square. to make matters worse, because of new york's far left, extreme, soft on crime policies, many of the attackers were freed without bail. everybody heard me right. freed without bail. and given reduced sentences through very weak plea deals.

some of the alleged attackers received a taxpayer-funded bus ride straight to california. some of the attackers were arrested again while out on bail. the border crisis meets a sanctuary city and a sanctuary state. what a bad combination. are we surprised by the results of this completely broken system? i don't think so. this is actions without consequences. this is joe biden's america. the longer joe biden and his administration go without taking action and holding these bad actors accountable, the longer our american citizens will suffer. that's why i introduced this bill. and it's why it's so important that we pass laws that rein in lawlessness in this country. actions must have consequences. this bill takes an important

step in ensuring that we have zero, zero tolerance for those in our country who break our laws and assault those who are sworn to protect and to serve our american communities. this bill requires the d.h.s. secretary to issue a detainer for illegal aliens who are charged with, arrested for, convicted of or admitted to assaulting a law enforcement officer. it also requires d.h.s. to quickly take custody of the alien if the alien isn't already detained. by requiring mandatory detention for illegal aliens who assault cops, the bill not only prevents these dangerous criminals from being loose on american streets, but also speeds up to remove them from the united states of america entirely.

the time for standing by and doing nothing must end. we cannot stand by as the fabric of our american society dissolves into violence and lawlessness. americans are tired of it. the bill isn't just the commonsense solution to removing illegal aliens from our streets and out of the country, it is a call for action and a demand for accountability to those who would break our laws and it is a remind that are those who do will face real consequences. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlelady from washington is recognized. ms. jayapal: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jayapal: i rise in opposition to this overly broad and unnecessary legislation.

supposedly this bill would subject any undocumented immigrant to mandatory immigration detention if they commit an assault on a law enforcement officer. to be clear, that is already current law. but this bill goes far beyond that. it would subject even those individuals with lawful statuses like daca and temporary protected status to mandatory detention if they are merely arrested or charged with assault on a law enforcement officer. there are no provisions to protect those who are mistakenly arrested and are released without charges. in addition, the definition of assault varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. nevertheless, this bill adopts the definition of assault used in the local jurisdiction to subject somebody to mandatory detention. that means that conduct that people would not normally think of as an assault, like lightly

touching an officer, could result in an arrest and mandatory detention. furthermore, people are mistakenly arrested for assault on a police officer far more often than we would like to admit. when this bill was introduced, it was clearly in response to an incident earlier this year in which some recently arrived migrants allegedly assaulted a group of law enforcement officers in times square. that incident sparked outrage across the country. but our republican colleagues directed much of their ire on one particular individual who flipped off tv cameras as he left his arraignment. the image was plastered all over the image was promoted by former president trump as a symbol of everything that's wrong with the biden administration's approach to immigration. there was only one problem, mr. chairman. as it turns out, that specific individual who everyone was so quick to demonize and attack had

the charges dropped against him, despite being arrested and initially charged, he was not even present when this crime occurred. we also see this in protests, where one western gets unruly -- where one person gets unruly and police arrest everyone in the crowd. let's be clear, violence is never the answer and should never be use in addition political protest. it was wrong for people to assault the police right here in the united states capitol on january 6, just as it is wrong for people to assault the police or anyone else during any protest, regardless of their politics. that is why u.s. law already makes assault a crime and admitting to or being convicted of a serious assault on a law enforcement officer already results in immigration consequences under current law, including mandatory detention and deportation. this bill doesn't change that, doesn't make any safer, doesn't

fix any problems in the immigration system. instead, this legislation deems everyone guilty until proven innocent. it serves only to further the republican agenda to fear monger about immigrants and keep immigration in the news during an election year, while at the same time bank rolling the private for-profit prison companies. this bill is going nowhere fast, just like the very similar bill that house republicans passed last police week. the american people aren't stupid. they see what house republicans are doing. they want meaningful reforms to the system. they know that bills like this would do absolutely nothing toward that end. house republicans refuse to negotiate on immigration, and they fail to do anything that would actually solve some of these problems we face, only to turn around and complain when those problems get worse. this is political theater at its worst, and i urge all of my colleagues to join with me to oppose this legislation.

i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. van drew: thank you, mr. chair. let me say i agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle on one thing. one. the american people are not stupid. the american people know, see, hear and feel what's going on around them. the american people know that their streets aren't safe. the american people who live in certain cities know that their kids are being moved out of their schools so that we can house illegals. the american people know that they're paying lots of taxes, and they're paying taxes in so many ways to pay for transportation, to pay for housing, to pay for legal care, to pay for bank cards, to pay for all kinds of services to illegals, including in some cases education subsidies.

the american people are not stupid. and they're tired of it. and they're really tired of individuals who come from other countries illegally, and let me be clear, because i never want this to be morphed into anything else. we love in america legal immigration. some of our best citizens are legal immigrants. it's illegal immigration that creates this problem. and what we know is that there are illegals that break the law once when they come over. then they break the law again by committing an illegal act by assaulting someone and in some cases a police officer. we have cases here just recently published may 14, migrants charged in attack on nypd cop in times square, offered a plea deal. offered a plea deal, but they can still stay in the country. so they broke the law when they

came here. then they came here and they broke a law again by assaulting someone. then they were let out again, and they broke the law again. this isn't for an election. this is to try to save our country and the american people. they're tired of it. and law enforcement is tired of it. we ask law enforcement these men and women to protect this nation, to protect our people, and then we don't back them up. it's wrong. it's un-american. i want to address something else, because we are the united states of america. and on top of it all, it's probably the only country in the world that you can come over here illegal because we have open borders. other countries don't allow this. no country can prevail with it. currently we allow it, unfortunately. they come here. we allow them here. they break the law here. and we still give them due process. yes, they should be detained. i'll tell you something else.

do you know why they need to be detained? they need to be detained, because i hope everybody sits down with the inspector general from homeland security like i did for about an hour and a half. and he will tell you they checked the names that you're supposed to provide when you come in the country, vacant lots, vacant store fronts, nonexistent addresses, because once they're in, we can't find them anymore, and that's the truth. they're breaking the law sometimes, and that's the truth. so when they're here and they break the law, they have to be detained so we know where they are. then they'll go through due process, and they'll come before a judge. and if a mistake has been made and something's wrong, it will be dealt with the way it is dealt with in the unites of america, but if they have broken the law once, twice, three times, four times, no, they should be detained and then they should be deported. they don't belong in the united states of america. that's not what immigration is

about. immigration is about standing, coming here, loving this country, pledging to the flag, loving america. now, if you asked in my world what it would be, if you break the law and you come here illegally, you should be detained, and you should be sent back, period. you don't even have to assault anybody. but at a very minimum, for god's sake, let's get this done. enough's enough. the american people are smart, and the american people are tired. they're tired of it. they're tired of being unsafe. they're tired of it costing them so much money in tax dollars. they're tired of not being able to take care of their kids, pay their grocery bills, worry about their social security and medicare, because we're spending money on all this other stuff. it is enough. they've had it. i've had it. i believe the majority of the congress has had it. with that, i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: gentlelady from financial financial reserves. gentlelady from washington reserves. gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. van drew: i will reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington is recognized. ms. jayapal: i'm prepared to close. assaulting a law enforcement officer is a serious offense that deserves both criminal and immigration consequences. that is why serious assaults on law enforcement officers are already immigration violations that require detention and deportation. the bill before us today would do absolutely nothing to change that. this legislation instead would dramatically expand the type of conduct that would subject somebody to mandatory detention, to include people who may not have even committed a crime at all. that is not a good use of our limited law enforcement

resources. instead of wasting our time on these bills that do nothing to fix our immigration system and stand no chance of becoming law, we should be talking about how to create a workable immigration system that allows americans to reunite with their family and allows american businesses and universities to attract the best and the brightest, essentially creating a workable process so that people wouldn't be forced to go to the border as the only way to come to the united states. we should be talking about the fact that immigrants are good for the country and good for our economy. one in four american doctors were born abroad, and roughly 45% of fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants. 70% of agricultural workers are immigrants. immigrants feed us, heal us, and help ensure that this country remains an economic powerhouse. we could be embracing the

positive impacts of immigrants rather than demonizing them. the congressional budget office recently announced that new immigrants will add $1 trillion in previously unexpected revenue to our country's g.d.p. between 2023 and 2024. similarly, the department of health and human services found that over a 15-year period, refugees contribute nearly $124 billion more in revenue than they received in services from the government. documented and undocumented immigrants pay tends of billions of dollars in taxes each year. but instead, the majority insists on scapegoating and fear mongering immigrants. it is true that the immigration system has deep problems, but they cannot be solved through an enforcement-only approach. we have been trying that approach for 30 years, and it has failed. the truth is that the immigration system is all

connected. people are coming to the border because the legal immigration system has not been updated in over 30 years, and they cannot find any other pathway to come in. the majority often talks about legal immigrants. well, let me tell you the wait time for some permanent residents to bring their families into this country is over a century long. a century, for legal, permanent residents to bring their family members into the country. employers are begging us to modernize the employment-base immigration system, because the elements on high-tech visas were set when floppy discs were the height of technology, and these companies cannot hire the people they need. and the small number of immigration judges that we have are absolutely crushed under a massive back log of asylum cases so extensive that it is now taking people over eight years to get even a hearing. why doesn't majority just help

us put more money into immigration judges so we can resolve that back log? why not open legal pathways for people who are trying to come here legally? i know this, mr. chairman, because i came here, and it took me 17 years to navigate the immigration system and become a u.s. citizen, but that was several decades ago. now you can't even get through the process. i hope that one day we can get back to actually governing, to passing real bills that can make a difference in the lives of the american people. but i fear, mr. chairman, that today is not that day. i urge members to oppose this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington yields. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. van drew: thank you, mr. chair. well, i will agree, after i agreed with the gentlelady on one issue, i'm going to agree with her on a second one. immigration is a good thing. but let's not morph this. let's be really clear. legal immigration is good.

illegal immigration is not. and let's talk about legal immigration for a minute. i always like to tell this story, because it's a real story, a true story. i got a whole bunch of them. i have a lot of, in my district, many legal immigrants who came here, who work hard, who are taking care of their families, who love the united states of america so much. i had this friend of mine, he bought a small store and a gas station, he lived above it, did it beautifully, reconstructed the whole thing. his kids did well in school. his wife worked hard along his side. and we talk about the issues of the day. i'd always stop by all the time there. it's a true story. one day i go by. and he's there. and by the way, he was somebody that believed in american values, and i guess that's the point i'm going to make. i go by, and i'm talking to him, he starts to tear up. for real. he's a big guy, a tough guy. he's gone through a lot in his

life. i said what's wrong? and he said this was a big day for me yesterday. and i said why, what happened? i thought maybe he lost a family member, i didn't know what happened to him. and he said i became a united states american citizen. he said i am so proud. this is real. he said i'm proud to defend this country, i would fight for this country. i love this country. he said i will stand up against any foe to this country. it is the greatest country ever on the face of the earth. that's a good thing. illegal aliens who come here and flip off, you know, to the cameras when they're walking out of court because they've been released. illegal i will yens who commit crime after crime after crime, and they keep getting released because of prosecutors that are ultraleft. illegal ale indians who get all kinds of benefits, but don't want to work hard in america,

and that's not all of them. but there are some. illegal aliens who don't even love the united states of america, but come here because they want to reap financial benefits. that is not a good thing. so don't let anyone ever say that because you oppose illegal aliens that you oppose immigration. that's not true. it's a sad state of affairs that we're in that this bill is even needed, but given the abandoned southwest border and the violence of the biden border crisis that's unleashed on our communities in every community in this great country, the detain and deport illegal aliens who assault cops act is another necessary piece of legislation. it's important. it means something. . actions do have consequences. mr. chair, what you do has consequences. what i do has consequences.

the actions these individuals take have consequences. if you assault a law enforcement officer, then you are -- and you are in this country illegally, you will be detained and if it's true, you should be deported. period. no questions asked. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, it's common sense, it's the right thing to do, it's the american thing to do. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill shall be in order accept those -- except those printed in part a of house report 118-511. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order

printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 118-511. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. molinaro: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part a of house report 118-511 offered by mr. molinaro of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1227, the gentleman from new york, mr. molinaro, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. molinaro: thank you, mr. speaker. as we pause this week to recognize the men and women in

law enforcement who sacrifice and serve our communities across america, it's important that we take additional steps, additional steps to provide for their safety, for the protection of their colleagues, and to enhance public safety in communities across our country. i listened intently to the debate that ensued regarding the base bill. i for one am interested in governing. governing is terrifically important. i might remind my colleagues across the aisle that the congress legislates. we adopt laws that then the executive as part of governing must actually enforce. what we have seen over the last four years is this administration and this president have surrendered the southern border to drug cartels. this administration and this president have made it easier for individuals, nearly 12 million after four years, to enter into our country unchecked, unvetted, and in many

cases allowed to avoid the law. now, add to that if we are to govern in this country, we not only need the president, but we need states like new york and governors like kathy hochul to actually enforce the law. and yet this administration and the administration in new york are making it consistently harder for law enforcement to do their job. new york state alone now seeing over 200,000 undocumented individuals in new york city alone. why? because new york state and new york city declared themselves sanctuary cities. if we are to govern in this country, and actually enforce the law, you would need states like new york and cities like new york to actually enforce the law. but in new york they don't allow for the deportation of undocumented individuals, even after they assault police officers. we saw this in new york city only weeks ago. why? because it's illegal for, in new york, for law enforcement to interact with federal -- with

federal law enforcement, i.c.e. consistently the state of new york has been allowed to make it easier and easier for individuals not only to enter into our country illegally, but to commit crimes, cashless bail, this consistent effort to put people back on the streets without any intervention, without any enforcement of law, and because of it we consistently see an increase in assaults against law enforcement and american citizens. 80% of those who are transported from the border to other cities and states across the country aren't being transported by other states, they're being transported by the president and the federal government. again, if we are to govern, the president needs to follow the law. my amendment requires a report to congress to speak on the number of migrants who were detained for assaulting a police officer over the past five years, we can't actually enforce the rules if we don't have the data. this amendment wouldn't be necessary at all if the biden administration took actions to secure the border and states

like new york didn't flaunt the law and create their own to avoid the law and make communities like mine less safe. so i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington seek recognition? ms. jayapal: mr. chairman, i claim the time in opposition although i am not opposed. the chair: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jayapal: mr. chairman, this amendment requires the government accountability office to conduct a study and report to congress on the number of undocumented immigrants detained for committing an assault against a law enforcement officer over the past five years. it's important for us to take a step back and remind ourselves what the underlying legislation is about. this bill would subject even those individuals with a lawful status like daca or temporary protected status to mandatory detention if they are merely arrested or charged with an assault on a law enforcement

officer. there are no provisions to protect those who are mistakenly arrested and are released without charges. this is an unnecessary expansion of the law. which already subjects people to mandatory detention and deportation if they admit to or are conv convicted of such ass. in fact, i imagine that this report would demonstrate that the underlying legislation is wholly unnecessary because it would show that under current law people who commit assaults on law enforcement are already subject to detention. therefore i see no reason to oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from washington reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. molinaro: i appreciate the support from my colleague across the aisle. i might remind her some moments ago she encouraged that we ought to be governing. the problem is that congress has adopted legislation that should be enforced at the border. congress has established rules,

as have states, to ensure that law enforcement is protected. yet states are permitted to avoid that law. presidents like this one are permitted apparently to simply ignore the law. the base legislation is necessary because we continue to see an escalation in violence against law enforcement officials while at the same time an abandonment of security at our border and the allowance of states like new york to simply avoid any responsibility for bringing criminals to justice. the base bill is necessary, the amendment is necessary, i appreciate the support for the amendment, and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields. the gentlelady from washington is recognized. ms. jayapal: this legislation has absolutely nothing to do with the border. it doesn't do anything to secure our border, it doesn't do anything to fix the broken immigration system. i don't oppose this amendment because i actually think it's going to make my point at the end of the day with the report. so again, i don't oppose this

amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from washington yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 118-511 for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. norman: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part a of house report 118-511 offered by mr. norman of south carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1227, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. mr. norman: thank you, mr. speaker. i applaud congressman van drew and his leadership on this issue

and am proud to support his legislation to dane illegal -- to detain illegal immigrants who assault law enforcement. my amendment is really straightforward and i believe in line with the goals of the up-to-date lying bill -- of the underlying bill. my amendment makes sure that school resource officers are considered law enforcement officers. in light of the increase of violent protests on college campuses, it's especially important we show these brave campus police officers that we have their back. under president biden's watch, nearly 4.7 million illegals have been released and more than 1.8 million known illegal aliens, gotaways, have escaped into the united states. in south carolina alone, we have over 175,000 illegal aliens in my home state. these include dangerous individuals who violate our laws and then assault the law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line to

protect our communities. it is imperative that we fight back against the biden administration's radical open borders policy by mandating immigration detention for illegal aliens who assault law enforcement officers. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment to specifically ensure that our hardworking campus police, officers and resource officers are afforded the same protections as other law enforcement officers under this legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. norman: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington wish to be recognized? ms. jayapal: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. jayapal: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would expand the scope of this already bad bill to include campus police and school resource officers under the term law enforcement

officers. unfortunately this amendment makes a bad bill even worse while highlighting one of the many flaws in the bill. first, the fact that mr. norman felt the need to file this amendment to begin with just highlights the lack of clarity around this bill. as we've discussed, this bill will subject any inadmissible immigrant to mandatory immigration detention for merely being arrested or charged with assault on a law enforcement officer or first responder. but the bill lacks any definition for what is considered a first responder. mr. norman was clearly concerned with this as well and felt the need to make sure that campus police and school resource officers were included. unfortunately mr. norman's amendment does not bring any additional clarity to the definition of first responder and it even adds another undefined term, school resource officer. now, mr. norman could easily have remedied this by choosing the definition that exists in

title 34 of the u.s. code, but for some reason he did not. states all over the country use different definitions for school resource officers. they have dinner duties and functions depending on the state. so this amendment raises far more questions than it begins to answer. on top of the poor drafting, this amendment expands an already bad bill and makes the bill worse. as i discussed during general debate, it is quite common during protests for law enforcement to arrest an entire group of people after one person in the crowd gets unruly. after the largely peaceful protests that we've seen on college campuses over the last month, protests made up largely of young people and teenagers, it would be a mistake to extend this definition to include campus police. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. norman: it's unbelievable

that those listening to this debate going on in the chamber -- i think we've all seen the college campuses, the protests that you're talking about. many include breaking windows, knocking down doors. it's not protest. this is a destruction of property. this has no place on the college campuses. and to have the presidents and the tenured professors to be quiet on this and to have students scared to go to class and to cancel exams. that's not what they pay money for. that's not what the taxpayers deserve. now, this is very simple. if you're a resource officer, your job is to protect the students and the facilities. and if you're in law enforcement on the campuses, hired by the individual school, you're there to protect the campus and protect the students. i'm sick and tired of these liberals who are -- keep saying

peaceful protests. it's like the 50 cities that were burned a couple of years ago. that's not a peaceful protest. that's destruction of property that has consequences. all we're say something give these officers the protection -- saying is give these officers the protection that law enforcement officers have and it shouldn't even have to be said for me to bring this amendment. it is a shame that we've reached this point in this country, that we're having to define what a resource officer is. and i would ask all those who may be questioning this, you go out and volunteer to be a resource officer or sign up to be a resource officer. you go out and sign up to protect the campus and let's see how the tables will turn. ... i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized.

ms. jayapal: up in of us are condoning violence on campuses. all i said is the vast majority of protesters on campuses have been peaceful. what happens when one person does something and the entire group is arrested is is relevant for this amendment. i don't think anybody believes that should be the case. i'm not really sure why the gentleman felt the need to clarify exactly what the definition was in this underlying legislation except that it wasn't clear. which is the point that i've been making all along. but the problem is that the amendment actually makes other terms unclear as well. so as i said, i oppose this amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair understands that amendment number three will not

be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number four printed in part a of house report 118-511. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. lalota: good afternoon, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part a of house report 118-511, offered by mr. lalota of new york. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mrr opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. lalota: president biden's open border poll circumstances notably the mass parole of unvetted my grant, have essentially turned every state into a border state and have made every community less safe. in good faith, my good friend from new jersey, congressman van drew, has proposed an effective bill that mandates the swift

identification, detention and deportation of illegal immigrants who commit violence acts against law enforcement. this legislation serbs as a necessary corrective to the current administration's perilously lax border security. mr. chairman, i'm proposing an amendment to congressman van drew's bill that would further strengthen our national security framework. this amendment will compel the secretary of homeland security to systematically collect and report to congress data on illegal migrants detained for charges or convictions of assaulting law enforcement officers. this measure will prevent the avoidance of accountability by ensuring that secretary mayorkas and other officials can no longer disregard this critical data. furthermore, it eliminates the need to depend solely on media reports to fully understand the scope of crime linked to current

border policies. consider, mr. chairman, a recent incident in times square, widely seen on social media, where legal migrants violently attacked nypd officers. despite their arrest, these individuals were quickly released and one was soon re-arrested for another crime. yet they were not deported. instead they received plea deals from manhattan district attorney alvin bragg. this pattern where the safety of our law enforcement officers is sidelined is becoming distressingly common. in this fiscal year alone, mr. chairman, customs and border protection apprehended over 18,000 illegal migrants with criminal backgrounds including 248 known gang members, 35 of whom were affiliated with ms-13. mr. chairman, supporting this amendment is the least we can do to bolster the safety of those who risk their lives for us every day. it's about ensuring that our approach to public safety is

proactive and grounded in reality, not just wishful thinking. as we mark national police week, i call on my colleagues to stand with our law enforcement officer by backing this amendment and the crucial bill introduced by mr. van dreusm let us commit to a policy that upholds the rule of law and ensures the safety of every american community. we should not 3u our heads in the sand and think, see no evil and hear no evil is an effective policy to keep our heroes safe. during national police week especially, i urge all my colleagues to support law enforcement by supporting my amendment to congressman van drew's vital underlying bill. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? ms. jayapal: i claim time in opposition although i'm not opposed. the chair: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jayapal: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment requires that the department of homeland security

provide an annual report to the judiciary committee of the house and senate containing the number of immigrants the department detained as a result of this bill in that year. under this bill that report would include people being detained even if a person is merely arrested and never charged, or after the charges against them were dropped. it's important to remember that this bill does not include any waivers or provisions to exempt people who were mistakenly arrested or found not guilty. i really hope that this report, if requested, would contain a breakdown of the number of people detained by category, so that we could see how many innocent people were subject to mandatory detention under this bill. right now, the amendment doesn't get into that level of detail but i hope my colleagues across the aisle would work with me to make sure we get all the data that's provided, including that breakdown. nevertheless, while this amendment does nothing to

improve the underlying legislation, it doesn't do anything to make it worse, so i therefore see no reason to oppose it. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. lalota: i would welcome another amendment that would be more specific to congress' endeavor to ensure we have the claire i have to the size and scope of this issue. my amendment is something along that path. the gentlelady wants more, the gentlelady understands she can submit her own amendment on that issue. nevertheless, on this amendment, mr. chairman, i would urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. ms. jayapal: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm not opposed to the underlie -- to the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. there being no further amendments, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 7343 and pursuant to house resolution 1227, i report the bill as amended by the resolution back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the

bill h.r. 7343, pursuant to house resolution 1227, reports the bill as amended by the resolution back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question so ordered. -- question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not the chair will put them engross. the question is on adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are agreed to. the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the immigration and nationality act to provide for the detention of certain aliens who commit assault against law enforcement officers. the chair: the question is on passage of the bill -- the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the

bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina, mr. bishop, seek recognition? mr. bishop: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1227, i call up the bill h.r. 7581 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 410, h.r. 7581. a bill to require the attorney general to develop reports relating to violent attacks against law enforcement officers and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1227, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended

is considered read. the bill as amended shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. bishop, and the gentlewoman from washington, ms0 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in the which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on h.r. 7581. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: it is my privilege to be the lead sponsor of h.r. 7581, the improving law enforcement officer safety and wellness through data act. and i rise in support of it. the bill would refine and expand

the gathering and analysis of data about attacks on law enforcement officers across the country, our current day scourge. its sponsorship is bipartisan and bicameral. i'm grateful for the leadership in the senate of senators grassley, tillis and others and the support of 25 bipartisan co-sponsors in the house. the justification, mr. speaker is obvious. just yesterday, the f.b.i. forecast the release of its annual report on officers assaulted and feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2023. reporting that, quote, from 2021 to 2023, more officers were feloniously killed, 194, an in any other con second ty three-year period in the past 20 years. and 2024 is on track to be the worst year of any, other than 2021, because of repeat -- because a repeat criminal who should have been in jail gunned down four heroes in charlotte

two weeks ago and injured five others. criminals killed 10 cops nationwide in april alone. until the full 2023 report is released, the latest data are that over 66,000 officers were assaulted in 2022. this bill will deepen the available data set in three ways. reporting on the intentionality of targeting law enforcement officers, because of their status as sworn officers. tracking aggression and trauma-incluesing incidentst do not rise to crime and cataloging the availability to officers of mental health resources to deal with the attacks they suffer. one would expect unanimous support and yet in the judiciary committee, democrats amazingly sought to gut and replace the entire bill with the same old anti-police legislation to

impair qualified immunity for police officers, create a national registry of police misconduct, require implicit bias training and so forth. if reacting to unprecedented killings and assaults of cops by intimidating and undermining cops sounds backwards and astonishing to you, watch the vote on this bill. the truth is that the strong impulse and desire among democrats to demonize and delegitimize police remain powerful and just under the surface. even as many of them deny they ever uttered the words defund and abolish during the 2020 summer of love. which spawned mass riots and increased attacks and killings of not only police officers but also those most in need of their especially here in washington, d.c., the effects of this most

irresponsible rhetoric in the history of american politics have been catastrophic. crime remains out of control, especially among juveniles. car jeep jackings and assaults on congressmen, a 20-year murder record. congress has disapproved with biden's signature and the d.c. rewrite that required mandatory minimums and cut sentences. d.c. council members faced recall efforts by d.c. citizens and the metro police department has ls almost 600 of 4,000 member force and almost every month loses more than it hires. and some democrats will vote against this little bill to collect more information about attacks on officers. and it must be considered under

a rule because it might not get the 2/3 majority to pass on suspension as much as little bills are. here are the searing consequences. where's that board. here to my right are the consequences of this political division. the human cost of the worst attack on law enforcement since 2016. charlotte-members of the committee leanburg eyer and correctional officers and sam palocci and united states deputy lost their lives on april 29. i have been to their funerals and seen and heard from their families, may their names endure in our memory or list the other lives taken from us long ago, jonathan dillard, ny pmp d shot

and killed leaving behind a wife and one-year-old. phillip nix killed at a gas station interdicting criminals who wanted to steal beer the night before new year's eve. a sheriff's deputy ambushed and shot to death by illegals. ryan hendricks, deputy, lost his life in a shootout. david dorn, 77-year-old retired police captain fatally shot interrupting a burglary during the george floyd riots and far too many others to name in the time allowed. is it time yet to come around? the former new york city police commissioner said about that

place, quote, don't hold your breath. the state and the city cram have been captured by the progressive left and unlikely the voters are going to take them out of office any time soon. let's prove that the same cannot be said of congress. one way or the other. support our men and women in blue. the american people certainly do. the overwhelming majority of them. let's pass this little bill. develop the information necessary so we can protect the officers who serve us, who risk their lives every day. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from washington, ms. jayapal is recognized. ms. jayapal: i yield myself such time as i may consume. my colleagues just

mischaracterized the democratic amendment that was offered in committee. mr. speaker, this legislation purports to improve law enforcement officer safety and wellness. it seeks to do this which requiring the attorney general to issue reports about attacks on officers, aggression against officers and officer mental health. while this legislation may seem on the surface to be meaningful, let us be really clear, it is more cheap talk from republicans. absolutely nothing in this bill makes a single police officer safer or invests a single dollar in officer wellness. while the collection of data including data of officer attacks and mental health is important, this bill is unlikely to provide any new data. by necessity, data about incidents of violence against law enforcement officers must already be initially collected and reported if at all by

tribal, state and local authorities who are in the best position to know about these incidents, not the attorney general. the federal government collects this data through the participation by these authorities involuntary reporting programs like the national incident base reporting program and the law enforcement officers killed and data collection. nothing in this bill requires agencies to participate in these programs nor does it mandate any kind of reporting. there is nothing in this bill to improve the underlying data that is available to the attorney general and others, it is unlikely that the reporting required by the bill would deliver any new insights that would improve officer safety. democrats sought to solve this problem of inadequate data

collection. under the bill, states have to report shootings and deaths and states would receive grants to facilitate. by both mandating and supporting data collection the george floyd and policing act would improve the data available to the congress, federal agencies and the public. critically, unlike this legislation, that bill would require reporting of uses of force both by and against law enforcement enabling us to have a full understanding of the dangers faced by officers as well as the injuries and deaths of civilians that are caused by police. in focusing only on attacks against officers, this bill turns a blind eye to uses of force by law enforcement against civilians, whether it is justified or not. the mental health reporting

provisions of the bill are unlikely to improve officer wellness because they fail to build on the work of past congresses and the biden administration. in the 115th congress, we passed the law enforcement mental health and wellness act, a bipartisan signed into law by president obama which directed the department of defense, the department of veterans affairs and d.o.j.'s affairs of orienting police services to report on mental health practices and services that could be adopted by law enforcement and the programs already available to them and expanded the availability of grant funds for law enforcement mental health and developed new educational resources. building on this work, president biden issued a 2022 executive order on advancing effective accountable policing and criminal justice practices to enhance public trust and public safety. the executive order required the attorney general to develop and

publish a report on best practices to address law enforcement wellness and make recommendations regarding the prevention of death by suicide of law enforcement officers. the attorney general has already complied with this executive order, so we know much more about the mental health resources and the needs of law enforcement. rather than retread our steps, we should be moving forward to help our law enforcement officers implement this important work so more officers can access the support that they need. last congress under democratic controlled, the house passed numerous bipartisan bills that improved safety and wellness like protecting america's first responders act, the public safety support act, the confidentiality opportunities for pier support or the cops counseling act and the law enforcement de-escalation training act and seven bipartisan bills many led by

republicans have been passed by the democratic-led senate. these are bills that would help law enforcement and our priorities for the police groups. but so far, house republicans have advanced one of them. this legislation represents another wasted opportunity to work together on substantive proposals that will make our communities and the law enforcement officers that protect them safer. i urge members to oppose this legislation. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina, mr. bishop, is recognized. mr. bishop: as the comments of the gentlelady from washington developed, it became clear, she said it first i mischaracterized what occurred in the judiciary committee and became clear that i didn't mischaracterize anything. what they offered to do was to take again this bill, which provides for additional data

collection about attacks on law enforcement officers to take the entire text of the bill to gut it and replace it with yes, indeed, the george floyd justice and policing act is the name. and that is the bill i described as having impaired -- attempted to impair officer qualified immunity, to require training on implicit bias, to establish a data base to impugn officers nationwide. that is the bill that was a very top priority of democrats when they were in the majority. it passed on the floor under majority rule and didn't advance, for good reason, because the last thing america needs, again as demonstrated by the events in washington, d.c., the last thing america needs is police officers to be brushed back from their jobs to be intimidated from doing the very

tough work of criminal law enforcement by legislation that antagonizees, demeans, delegitimizees them. and here we are. is this the only reporting bill that's ever come up that democrats find objectionable because of their interest in good and efficient government? is it they are concerned about the possibility that the bill might not have excellent impacts or be efficient or advance the game or break new ground? what's the harm after all? here's what the harm is. democrats cannot abide even the simplest of legislation that recognizes the burdens that are bourne every day by police officers in this country on our behalf, that they are being subjected to greater and greater incidents and attacks on their persons and their deaths in the line of duty by people who

intend to do them harm and that there may be gaps in terms of the resources available to them to deal with the difficulties they confront. the response that you need to do the george floyd justice and policing act in lieu of this reporting bill is absurd. it is gaslighting in the highest degree. this little reporting bill, there's just knowing to it, and yet for some reason, it sticks in the claw of the minority. just to say to police officers, we are going to extend further efforts. further minimal efforts to learn the information that we need to find out to see how big this problem is and whether you're being afforded the opportunity to deal with it in your personal leaves as it wreaks havoc on

you. joshua eyer, sam palocci, alden elliott, thomas weeks, junior. one of the worst attacks on law enforcement ever. shouldn't we go and find out what we need to know for their benefit? is that not an appropriate way? would that not be an appropriate way to honor their memory? is the concern with efficiency and breaking new ground so profound that you got to replace the bill to find out information about the assaults on them with the george floyd justice and policing act that was rejected last congress? it's simply astonishing. and americans aren't going to tolerate it. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i reserve. ism the gentleman reserves. -- the gentleman the gentleman k now controls the minority time. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. let me speak more directly to the circumstances in washington, d.c., and what has transpired in consequence of exactly the kind of policing bill represented by the, quote, george floyd justice in policing act, with which the minority proposed to the judiciary committee to gut and replace this bill. at this time i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. higgins.

mr. higgins: i thank my colleague. madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. higgins: madam speaker, do you know why our democrat colleagues oppose this report? do you know why? madam speaker? they don't want clear, fresh, precise data provided to the american people on how many attacks uniformed law enforcement officers suffer every year? they don't want america to know, madam speaker. because america would be shocked. it's vastly underreported. by rank and file officers. like me. and my brothers and sisters from sea to shining sea. men who know what it is not just to wear a little pin here, walk

around d.c. with your head high, but to wear a shield, to wear a badge, to earn that certification every year. we know what it is to be constantly under threat of attack and physical attack. but we carry on. we rarely report what we don't absolutely have to. because of the agenda-driven persecution that officers are currently facing in where? republican-run cities with republican district attorneys that actually prosecute criminals? no, madam speaker. in liberal cities. look at the maps. in cities run by democrat policies and their agenda, democrat mayor, democrat d.a.'s. those are the cities that are eaten alive by crime in america. this is why you cannot fill the ranks of law enforcement

officers across the country. when i was a cop we had about 800,000 uniformed officers. we were on our way to a million. we're down about 600,000 now. your officers are leaving service. not because of the threats that we have historically faced, but because of the threats that we continue to face of physical danger on the streets and the very significant possibility even proablght in some municipalities, that the actions of that law enforcement officer are going to be treated more harshly than the criminal and violent attacks that that officer both faces and protects his community from. to think that my colleagues across the aisle would oppose a bill that mandates a -- the department of justice provide accurate data to the american

people about how many violent attacks uniformed officers face across the country, my god, you can barely get your head wrapped around that. of course this body that is supposed to represent we the people should endeavor to provide the american people with accurate contemporary data regarding such things. i'm honored to support my colleague's bill and i encourage representatives on both sides of the aisle to join us in support of this legislation. i yield. mr. bishop: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think it bears repeating in light of that extraordinary commentary that right here in the district of columbia, to the affliction of 700,000 roughly

local citizens and the 19 million that visit annually, exactly the kind of radical po litciization -- politiization -- politicization that would says this beyond the pale, that you've got to have the george floyd justice in policing act. that's exactly what they did in d.c. that's what they've done to lead to citizen-led recall petitions on two d.c. councilmembers. what they've done to see carjackings explode in ways that no one ever thought possible. to have a 20-year record of homicides last year. and to have one d.c. councilmember still touting that he managed, because of the budget politics, to take millions and millions out of the department, out of the metropolitan police department.

so that their force has declined from 4,000, by 600 or more. and continues to decline. three year into the phenomenon. how far will ideology go? to take us beyond common sense. to a point we can't recover. let's do a little reporting bill. and find out the details. get a rich data set. about this scourge that we see across the nation. precipitated and encouraged by those who still cannot bring themselves to say that law enforcement officers are a needed quantity. the nation must have them. law and order must prevail. in order for the country to succeed. how can we have come to a point

in the country where that cannot be conceded readily by everyone in the political spectrum. i do not know. i do not understand. but that's where we are. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york reserves. mr. bishop: prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you. madam speaker, this bill is more cheap talk from republicans. nothing in this bill makes a single officer safer or invests a single dollar in officer wellness. this legislation falls for a short of the george floit justice in policing act which would invest in better data collection and reporting by requiring law enforcement agencies to report uses of force by or against law enforcement officers as a condition of the

receipt of certain grants. house republicans are again refusing to work with police and the organizations that represent the police to pass meaningful legislation. this legislation is a missed opportunity. it calls for a report that duplicates existing reporting requirements. it falls for a short of meaningful progress in officer safety and represents an enormous step backwards from legislation offered by the democratic majority in the 117th congress. i urge my colleagues to reject this legislation so that we can work together on bipartisan legislation that will really enhance the safety of our officers and our communities. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. bishop: which cheap talk. that's what the gentleman from new york just said. cheap talk. well, madam speaker, there's nothing cheap about it.

behold the price. that's why when this body, when this republican house, undertook to disapprove the d.c. crime bill that would have radically rewritten criminal law in the district of columbia, this body disapproved it with the support of over 30 democrats. that's why chuck schumer and the democrats -- democrat majority in the senate joined in disapproving that radical rewrite of the criminal law in the district of columbia. that's why joe biden signed the law to disapprove the radical rewrite of the criminal law in d.c. what's cheap talk is the concern that this would produce a duplicate report. that's the objection? that the report might be

duplicative? really? i'd say duplicative reports from here to kingdom come if there's the slightest chance that it will avoid this unspeakable price. everybody in the chamber should support the bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1227, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to require the attorney general to develop reports relating to violent attack against law enforcement officers and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. bishop: on that, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1227, i call up house resolution 1210 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1210, resolution condemning the biden border crisis and the tremendous borders law enforcement officers face as a result. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1227, the resolution is considered read. the resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally guyed and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the comoap the judiciary or their respective designees. the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, and the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california.

mr. mcclintock: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.res. 1210. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcclintock: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: house resolution 1210 comes before us as thousands of frontline law enforcement officers come here to this capitol to ask for our help to restore a justice system that was once the envy of the world but in recent years has been undermined by woke district attorneys who refuse to enforce our law, woke city councils that insult and -- our law enforcement and woke officials who refuse to protect our border which has become a source of deadly drug, terrorists, gangs and criminal cartels who illegally cross our borders daily. just a week ago, i noted on this floor that on the first day that joe biden took office, he

rescinded the successful remain in mexico polity sy that had slowed phony asylum claims to a trick. he completely blocked completion of the border wall. and ordered i.c.e. to stop enforcing court-ordered deportations. and thus began the largest illegal mass migration in history. but i need to update the numbers this week. that i cited last week. to date, this administration has now deliberately released a total of 4.9 million illegal alien into our communities, and has allowed another 1.9 million known gotaways to evade the border patrol and the border patrol has been overwhelmed. so the new numbers combine 6.8 million imlegal aliens who entered this country. that is now a population larger than the entire state of

indiana, our 17th largest state, with nine congressional districts. now, i expect the democrats will complain we are bringing up another measure condemning these policies. i have news for them, they have to get used to it. we are going to keep bringing it up until these policies are reversed or until the people elect an administration that can and will. i suspect we'll hear the democrats we have had, say immigrants are more law abiding than americans. they make no distinction between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. and that is the supreme insult to the millions of legal immigrants who enter our country biobaying our laws and waiting patiently in line and doing everything that our country asks of them. they want to pull their weight

and obey our laws and love and defend our country. illegal immigrants come here under very different circumstances. their first act is to commit a federal crime by illegally entering our country and second act is to demand free food, clothing medical care, transportation and legal services. i have watched them at the border taunting our border control as they illegally cross into our country. to equate their lawless behavior with hardworking legal immigrants is an outrage and my colleagues that do so should be ashamed. the number of terror suspects has ballooned and law enforcement officials are warning among the 1.9 million known got-aways, military,

single-aged men which could launch devastating attacks. fentanyl through the open borders killing hundreds of americans every day. democrat sanctuary policies and worst of all, the admission of untold thousands of the most vicious gang members on the planet are producing a terrible butchers' bill of assaults and murder on americans. to say that they are more law-abiding is gaslighting. when the actual numbers reported by state prisons in order to get reimbursement from the federal government, there is the tragic truth. these are the request states make to be reimbursed for the cost of incarcerating illegal aliens and this 231% more likely

to be jailed for crimes in california, 440% more likely in new jersey and 60% more likely in texas, just to name a few. 231% to be jailed in california according to their own state numbers. but you won't find that anywhere else because it is illegal in california to report the status. so by their criteria not a single crime is committed by illegals but they report their jails are overflowing. this is lune nancy and has to stop. our law enforcement officers deal this every day at the peril of their own lives. our angel families grieve their loved ones lost. now the house can and has written laws that will make it easier for future presidents like president trump to secure our borders and make it harder

for future presidents like joe biden to open them. but ultimately this is an enforcement problem. when i visited with the border patrol agents in yuma, i reminded them that the congress writes laws but we can't enforce them. i asked them what laws they needed us to write and they answered, we don't need new laws but need to enforce our existing laws. when republicans visited eagle pass in january, a chief said i'm not needing more buckets but someone to turn off the hydrant. donald trump did that. and he finally got the hydrant down to a dribble. biden opened it full force with his first executive acts that he signed. and that's a problem that can only be fixed by replacing this administration with one to

defend our country, protect our people and uphold the rule of law and that can only be done by the american people at the ballot box. until then republicans in the house will keep raising this issue at every opportunity because at the moment, that's all that we can do. madam speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: my republican colleagues like to talk a big game when it comes to immigration and border security. they have a long list of grievancees against the biden administration and tough talk about what should be done. when it comes to doing something about it, doing the hard work of legislating and finding solutions to their problems, that is where they come up short. so instead they bring up completely meaningless

nonbinding resolutions that allows them to shake their fists and accomplishing nothing. they can't even manage to bring up a simple resolution honoring law enforcement officers during police week. they have to tow turn everything into a broadside and an excuse. so for the fourth time in five months, republicans are bringing forth an empty resolution that will do knowing to address the situation at the border or repair our broken immigration system. they have given up on developing likes because donald trump told them he wanted to preserve the issue for the upcoming election and he didn't want them to solve the problem and wand away by a bipartisan deal negotiated by one of the most conservative members in the senate. they offer meaningless

resolution after meaningless resolution, a useless rehash of the last. like the others, this one cycles misleading statistics and constructs a false narrative while accomplishing nothing. that would be bed enough, but includes language that is false and offensive that democratic officials prioritize illegal aliens over americans. that is an outrageous assertion that is beneath the dignity of this house. we can have debates but questioning our loyalty to the american people is a disgusting slander and embarrassment to anyone who supports this resolution. we know that the best way to secure the border is to expand legal pathways and fund the immigration system. we have not updated our illegal immigration system in 30 years

and the more broken it is, the more people will come to the border. and because republicans refuse to support president biden's supplemental request we don't have the resources we need to secure the border and provide additional support to communities. we need more border patrol agents, more immigration judges and more asylum officers so asylum cases can be heard in weeks and not years. the republicans talk about catch and release and that's because the asylum cases take years. if we funded what the president requested, not to mention more border agents, asylum cases would be heard in weeks and not years. we need more c.b.p. officers and technology to counter fentanyl and modernize our ports of entry to combat the smuggling of people and drugs.

unfortunately, when it comes to providing the resources to address these critical needs, republicans have consistently voted no. if there is a nonbinding resolution, they are the first in line to support it. we can do better. we must do better. i urge members to oppose this resolution and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr.mcclintock: i remind my friend the bill that he keeps boasting about would tie the hands of any future president to use existing law to secure our border, as president trump did. until illegal crossings reach 4,000 a day. that's what they referred to when they praised the senate bill. a bill that would make it impossible to do what donald trump did within our existing laws. those laws didn't change on inauguration day, the president

changed. and the new president reversed the policies of the trump administration and introduced this terrible crisis upon our country. and i am going to yield to the author of this resolution, mr. higgins of louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from louisiana is i reserve thebalance of my time. nighs dollars. mr. higgins: madam chair, i rise in support of the resolution that i have offered and introduced and will be considered in the house floor. and i'm going to calmly suggest my colleagues across the aisle reassess their position on this thing, because you know, they speak in a republican majority is walking away from what they allege is a strong immigration

reform and border security bill. the border security bill that we passed here in this house, h.r. 2, was the strongest legislative measure in the history of congress had been walked away by the senate, democratic-controlled senate. h.r. 2 is condemned by your president, president biden. and you know what i don't like universally, h.r. 2? the cartels. my colleagues they may want to wonder, how do you find ourselves in line with the cartels. since day one of this executive branch, this executive administration since january of

2021, the policies of our executive branch were flipped to be more receptive to illegal immigration and in doing so, more in line with the cartels' operations, the trafficking human beings and drugs into our country. anyone with two brain cells that may occasionally bump into each other would realize that if you soften your existing law enforcement on illegal immigration when on the other side of the border the territory is 100% controlled by criminal cartels who are trafficking two things, human beings and drugs, what do you think might happen? of course, you are going to have a drastic increase in trafficked

human beings and drugs, which is exactly where we are. so republicans took action in the first few months that we had majority control, we went through exhaustive legislative measure to battle through the language of h.r.2. we went through an 18-hour markup in the homeland security committee, my committee. and we brought h.r. 2 to the floor and it was passed, with all republicans supporting that bill. went to the senate and there it remained gathering dust, madam chair. madam speaker, with countless efforts to communicate with our colleagues in the senate,

encouraging them, take up the bill. if you disagree with h.r. 2, by all means, debate and change, amend and pass your version, send it back to the house. when we go to conference, that's the way things work, but that's not what happened in the senate. the democratic-controlled senate skilled h.r. 2, which was a legitimate and strong response to the invasion that we are facing at our southern border. my resolution simply acknowledges and condemns the loss of our conch control -- sovereign control at the southern border and this wave upon human wave of misery and drugs and human trafficking is brought upon our contract and upon local law enforcement who has had to bear the full brunt of the biden administration

policies, madam speaker. and these are and these are policies. it can be flipped like that. very quickly. you put me in charge of our border policy, find out what happens with cartel operations. they're going to have to take some of those trillions of dlairs stole from us, trafficking the misery of human beings, caught up in their pipeline, and sold their horrible tale. of coming to america and prospering. it was sold a story by the cartels. and they were caught up in that trafficking. and how was that trafficking allowed in because the doors were open. the borders were open. by what?

by lack of money? no. by change in policies from the executive branch. and local and state law enforcement. madam speaker, has had to deal with that. in those men and women have suffered. those departments have suffered. they have been -- they've been forced into crisis, not by their own communities where they live and serve, but by executive policies of this federal government and my resolution is not meaningless. i say to my colleague across the isle. quite the opposite. it's -- it acknowledges the service and sacrifice of the men and women that wear a badge at the local and state level across our country who have been horribly impacted by the biden administration policies at our

southern border which has brought generational trauma upon our country. an era of misery we may never forget. i thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak for this amount of time and i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. biggs: i thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. i do find it interesting that the arguments are consistently wrong from my colleagues across the aisle. first of all, now they're telling us, it's just money. they need more money. and yet, overwhelmingly, everybody on that side of the aisle voted for the continuing resolutions that have come up the last few months. there wasn't one of them a that said let's amend the c.r. and

get more money. no. they didn't do that. they said we're going to rely instead on this bogus bill that's going to come from the senate. the bogus bill from the senate that they now, they love it, they embrace it. why does it -- why do they emwrasse it? there's a few things in it that are really unique. every day #-rbg ,500 people have to be allowed in. not legally. we allow over a million people in legally. they have to be let in if they're here illegally. 1,500. that would be an improvement for sure because we're looking at three million this year. and that would only be about a half million, over half a million. so i can understand why they say that's an improvement. but the reality is the president has authority now to act. and has chosen not to act. but this pill from the senate would say he could close the border when the number got to 5,000 a day. that was an option. 5,000.

good grief. that's over 1.8 million. that would still be an improvement over what the biden policy is today. the mandatory closure of the border doesn't kick in until 7,500 illegal aliens are encountered. wow. wow. that's -- that's what they say is so great. the other thing they like about it, it granted amnesty. that's what they really liked about this. but we know right now, president biden could close that border today if he would change the policies. to what, many say? how about back to the policies urn his predecessor, donald trump. let me give you an example. yuma sector. a good-sized seconder along the border. the entire last year of donald trump's presidency, the encounters were a little under 8,000. for the whole year. you know what they get every day now? and this is down. they get 350 a day.

there have been days that i've been in yuma where they've had 2,500 to 3,000 a day. and last week when i was down at the border, and the week before that when i was down at the border, different places in arizona, i can tell you that arizona is on track from going from 2018 through 2020, 60,000 encounters a year on average. this year, it will be over 700,000 encounters. the number one drug trafficking and human trafficking corridor is the tucson sector. when i was there just two weeks ago, driving along the border, there were no border patrol agents. why is that, you might say? you could go for miles. it was because every agent was processing the illegal aliens that had crossed during the night. hundreds.

and we're supposed to say well, you know what? this is a meaningless resolution. it's not a meaningless resolution. it gets at the heart of the matter who is being impacted by this type of diaspora? every country in the world is represented. i've talked to people from all over the world. let me just tell you this. if you go down to the little town of sierra vista, cochise county, not far from the border, about 20,000, 25,000 people live there. they have multiple high speed chases every week. why? because the cartels control the southern border. they snapchat. they instagram, to kids in tucson high schools and chandler high schools and may ka high schools in my district, they'll go down, borrow their mom and dads car, they'll go down and say meet us at this mile marker. and you'll have four bodies, you get paid $1,000 to $2,000 a

body, you take them up and drop them at this mile marker or take them into phoenix to a drop house. whatever you do, don't stop. as young as 13. fatality drivers, high speed through a town of 25,000 people. that's the impact that our local law enforcement, our local people feel. how about the city of yuma. one hospital. 0-bed e.r. 10-bed maternity ward. often filled with illegal aliens. locals. they have to be air-evaced to san diego or phoenix. that's real. so you can dance around it all you want, but this is why this is not a meaningless resolution. i support it. i encourage my friends to do the same. with that, i thank the gentleman and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york reserves.

mr. mcclintock: i'm ready to close when the gentleman from new york is. mr. nadler: i'm ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, we have heard about the senate bill, that it wasn't strong enough. it was strong enough so that senator mcconnell supported it. senator lankford, one of the most conservative senators in the senate, supported it. and it was going to pass until the -- until president trump said i don't want this problem solved. i want and issue for the election. then suddenly it was stopped. then we're tolled -- then we're told about h.r. 2. h.r. 2 was such a terrible bill that it couldn't get more than 32 votes in the senate, a senate with 49 republican senators. so don't tell me about 2.

-- about h.r. 2. mr. speaker this resolution is checked in language ostensibly honoring law enforcement but tls really just another excuse for republicans to play politics with the southern border and to sound tough without actually doing anything. and i'm glad that the kind of thing they're talking about doing isn't being done. they said turn back to president trump. president trump separated thousands of children from tear parents. little children. many of whom even today cannot be identified and returned to their parents. i don't think this country wants a return to that kind of policy. i urge members to oppose this pointless resolution and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i have to remind my friend the senate couldn't pass its bill. the house passed our bill.

and the difference is stark. as i said, the senate bill forebids any future president from using the powers that donald trump used to secure our borders. until illegal crossings reach 4,000 a day. he's not required to take any action until they reach 5,000 a day, and even then he must still allow 150rbgz 0 illegal crossings every day. that's the democrats' idea of border security. and it's a farce. this debate, i think, has encapsulated the difference between the two parties on this issue and they're absolutely jarring. and i don't need to characterize it, the thing speaks for itself. the american people can clearly see the difference and will need to make the most important choice of their lifetimes in just a few months. i would simply ask, how do we

make our streets safer? by making it all but impossible to deport criminal illegal aliens as the law requires. that's where our sanctuary city -- that's what our sanctuary cities are doing. how do we make our families safer by flooding our communities with deadly fentanyl? how do we make our children safer by refusing to vet every person who enters our country so that we can keep the criminals out? how do we make our neighborhoods safer by refusing to prosecute criminal illegal aliens to the fullest extent of the law? how do we make our highways safer by creating the conditions of deadly high speed chases and drunk driving? how do we protect our country as untold numbers of terrorists enter among the 1.9 million known gotaways who have entered under joe biden's nose? how do we make our communities safer as criminal gangs and criminal cartels set up shop in

our cities for their lethal business of child trafficking, drug trafficking, extortion and crime. these are the questions that have gone unanswered since this administration took office. and with which our local law enforcement officials must grapple every day at the peril of their own lives in order to protect ours. it's time we thank them for their service and their sacrifice and put the full might and fury of our nation behind the defense of our national borders. and that's what this resolution calls for. but one thing more will be needed that congress cannot provide, and that is a new administration. let's pray it comes in time to save our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1227, the previous question is order on the resolution and the

preamble. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. weather, the motion -- mr. mcclintock: on that, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> pursuant to house resolution 1227 i call up the bill h.r. 750, d.c. crimes act and ask for immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 750, a bill to limit youth offender status in the district of columbia 18

years or younger to direct the attorney general to establish and operate a publicly accessible website containing statistics on juvenile crime in the district of columbia, to amend the district of columbia to prohibit the council of the district of columbia from enacting changes to existing criminal liability sentences and for other purposes. pursuant to house resolution 1227 the amendment in the nature of the substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. the bill as amended shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member from maryland. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida.

mr. donalds: i ask that members can include extraneous material on the measure under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection mr. donalds: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. donalds: thank you, mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 7530 d.c. crimes act. the committee on oversight and accountability has held three hearings with d.c. first. many members of the committee have met privately with d.c. first to discuss the crime crisis in our nation's capital. one thing has been made abunt dauntly clear, the progressive policies of the district of columbia city council are simply not working. last year the congress successfully blocked the d.c. revised criminal code act of 2022 bypassing house joint

resolution 26 the first law passed by the 118th congress. that was a great first step towards addressing the rising crime in d.c. but that only kept the problem from getting much worse. the bill we are considering today expands upon that work. the d.c. crimes act overturns targeted portions of the d.c. council's youth reeblghts act by amending the definition of the person under age 25 to age 18. the d.c. crimes act overturns the targeted portions of the d.c. council youth rehabilitation act by amending the disef initiation of a youth offender from someone under the age of 25 to under the age of 18. the code allows a criminal under the age of 25 to be given the

same leansens shy afforded to minors. this bill requires that we treat adult criminals as adults like the rest of the country does. as juvenile crime soars, the bill requires the d.c. attorney general to create a website that tracks juvenile crime data. this will inform congress, the district's elected officials and metro police department and public and others on the severity of juvenile crime in the district of columbia. the bill prohibits the d.c. council from amending its liability laws locking into place the current criminal law and to amend such laws in the future. d.c. council would have succeeded in implementing radical soft on crime policies if it were not for the bipartisan effort of this congress to disapprove of the

d.c. council's legislation. even democratic mayor vetoed the progressive criminal reform package only for her veto to be overturned by the d.c. city council. the committee is committed to its constitutional responsibility to oversee the district of columbia. we cannot allow further pro-crime policies to be put into place while this crisis continues. citizens of d.c. and visitors to our nation's capital deserve to feel safe. this bill is a great step towards ensuring our capital city is going to be safe. i encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. raskin: i yield myself such time as i might consume. i suggest to the majority needs

someone new working on legislative acronyms for messaging bills. d.c. crime act which stands to immediately make everyone safe act of 2024. immediatey make everyone safe. doesn't sound like legislation. it sounds like a penn and teller magic trick to me. if the gentlemanfrom florida can make everyone safe he should be donald trump's running and mayor of the district of columbia. this is the further bill the majority has brought to the floor to villify and heck will the mayor and on the appalling deceit that the republican from florida, kentucky or arizona care more about public safety and public welfare in washington, d.c., than do the 700,000 people who live there

and their elected officials on the d.c. council and the mayor. this one is more sweeping and radical than the prior bills. it simply doesn't overturn one specific current d.c. law. it permanently d.c. strips authority making this legislation perhaps inadvertently i concede the largest proposed rollback of d.c.'s authority to govern itself in nearly 30 years. our colleagues may be shocked to learn what it is what they are being asked to vote for. the rules committee, i asked the republican members whether they understood what this bill actually does if you take the time to read the language. none of them seemed to know. let me explain. the bill amends the d.c. home rule act to say that the council may not quote enact any resolution or rule to change any criminal sentence in effect on

the date of the enactment of the d.c. crimes act of 2024. in other words, if this bill becomes law, the d.c. council could never increase criminal penalties again without congress acting first, nor could it create any new criminal offenses at all. that is their big tough on crime package they offer to congress. no increases in criminal sentences, indefinitely in the district of columbia and new offenses can be passed at all. say for directing an organized retail theft ring. well, mr. donald's bill would present them. a firearm with the removed or altered serial number. under his bill, they would be barred from doing so. in fact, that's precisely what d.c. did a few months ago.

my republicans colleagues are oblivious to the fact that earlier this year responding to this spike in crime not just in washington, d.c., d.c. council passed a law called the secure d.c. omnibus act of 2024 which dramatically increased criminal penalties for nine different crimes and created six new criminal offenses. the d.c. bill which was passed by the council and signed into law by the mayor does what republicans have been orating, it increased penalties for gun crimes, violence in parks, against vulnerable people, against rideshare drivers, metro drivers. the secure d.c. act created a host of new offenses including directing a retail theft ring,

strangulation, firing bullets in public, possessing a firearm with the removed or altered serial number and unlawful discarding of firearms or ammunition. they addressed the actual problems that they are experiencing in their city, something our colleagues know nothing about and don't care about. if mr. donalds' bill had been law the d.c. council would have been barred from enacting these tough on crime penalties all together and they will be in the future from responding to the spikes in crime that they experience. now, amazingly, the gentleman from flair opposes this naked power grab denying the crime-fighting tools and despite the fact that d.c.'s crime is 16% in 2024 compared to the same

period last year. there has been a 26% reduction in violent crime in 2024, which they conceded in the rules committee yesterday and 22% reduction in homicides. in other words, local democracy works. let the local government responds to the problem. but they insist that crime is spiking in d.c. despite evidence. what is their big tough on crime solution? to stop crime is prohibiting them to increase criminal penalties and blocking the d.c. council from creating any new crimes. they need to go back and try again. in any event, for my republican colleagues who love to cast thy debate the people of d.c. who i concede voted more than 90%

against donald trump in the last election, i would suggest that they consider the following fact, d.c. has maximum higher criminal penalties than many criminal states do. let's compare, the maximum penalty for armed robbery is 30 years. in kentucky, the maximum is 20 years. 50% less. in north dakota, it is 10 years or 66% less. in d.c., criminals can receive a 40-year sentence for armed carjacking. in kentucky represented by the chairman of the oversight. car jeep jacking is not a separate offense. you can only get half the sentence. look despite all of the fine

election year rhetoric we have heard, there is something profounding against our system of government in what the gentleman is proposing. if you read the declaration of independences, thomas jefferson sent forth a bill of particulars and one of the central allegations is that they were denying the colonists the right to define criminal offices for themselves. people over in england were dictating what the criminal offenses should be. and with all due respect, the gentleman from florida dictating to the people in washington, d.c., how they should order their affairs when it comes to the criminal law. jefferson would have understood this situation that we are in and our friends in washington, 713,000 tax paying draftable u.s. citizens have petitioned for statehood because they don't want to be kicked around by

other peoples' representatives. they want an equal say in this body and the senate and don't want people telling them they can't pass the criminal offenses and increased criminal offenses that they want for their crimes. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the alreserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. donalds: i appreciate that the ranking member thinks so much about my future, what i think about these days are the people of washington, d.c., and all of the people that come to visit the nation's capital and i find it interesting that the d.c. city council did something on march 11 because the district of columbia refused to address the crime issues in d.c. until very recently. that is important for people to that's important for peopletowns. secondarily, we do have a -- an

obligation to the district of columbia, and congress does is have the authority to execute that authority if the council will not do it. they have refused until very recently so congress is going to assert its authority to make sure that we try to secure the district to the best of our ability. last thing, my friend on the other side of the aisle, i doubt anybody will confuse me with king george. i don't think we look alike. but that being said, it's very different when you're talking about a far-off capital across the ocean, versus the nation's capital, sitting in the federal enclave which is the district of columbia. congress has a responsibility to the district and congress should assert that authority with this language. with that, mr. speaker, i'm going to yield five minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. biggs: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman from florida for yielding. before i get into the nut, i'll just respond to a couple of things. the baseline trick the reason

you -- the baseline, the reason you come down 16% and still have rabid crime, is because you were so high the years before and they were. washington, d.c. was. we know it. you know it. everybody knows it. and i would also suggest that my friend from florida was correct. the d.c. council had not taken action that they needed to take. in fact they've gone the other way and only recently were converted after the -- after congress put its pressure on them to make changes. and that, by the way, that was bipartisan pressure. but somehow we're now told that's improper now. so i rise in support of the bill, h.r. 7530, the d.c. crimes act which takes necessary steps to improve public safety in our nation's capital for its residents and our constituents. as violent crime skyrockets and d.c. police officer ranks continue to dwindle, the d.c. council continues to push progressive policies that make

everyone in d.c. unsafe. their inaction has endangered residents of and visitors to our nation's capital which is why in 2022, when the d.c. council passed the revised criminal code act of 2022, we were all shocked. the bill eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes except first degree murder, eliminated licenses. what whapsawed them back in an 18-month period? i would suggest it's because congress was exercising its constitutional oversight authority over the district of columbia and that persuaded the council that they were in the eye and being watched by congress and their residents were also unhappy. i'm going to have to suggest respectfully, it was not the d.c. council responding to crime across america and quote, not

just in d.c., close quote, which is an ironic argument to make when you're claiming that congress has no authority but we have constitutional authority to oversee the actions of d.c. but the reality is they were -- the council was responding to oversight that is authorized by the constitution. so congressening congress responded by blocking the reckless d.c. act from taking effect by advancing the bipartisan h.j.res. 26 into law. in response, d.c. council passed another bill, the policing and justice reform amendment which targeted the d.c. metropolitan police department officers and their attempt to defeat rise in crime. congress attempted to block this with h.j.res. 42 but president biden blocked that ensuring d.c.'s anti-police reforms went into effect. as a result, the d.c. police department has lost 1,200

members since 2020 and staffing remains at the lowest level. with officers often citing the new laws as their reason for leaving. the chief noted recently the m.p.d. needs 1,800 officers to be fully staffed. crime has increased 33% in 2023 compared to the previous year. hodses doubled since 2012. k4* is why when my colleague across the aisle begins saying they're down 16% in 2024, why do you think that is? because you had records in 2023 and now you're beginning to take this seriously because congress is acting. because congress is acting. violent crime increased by 37% from 2022 to 2023 with robberies rising 65%, motor vehicle thefts increased by 107% in 2023. compared to 2022.

congress man donalds' bill ensures congress is fulfilling its response to believe the oversee the district by lowering d.c.'s definition of youth to 18 and prohibiting d.c. from enacting new soft on crime sentencing changes in the future which they no doubt will once congress averts its eye from d.c. but if we enact dodgeman donalds' bill they won't be able to revert to the soft on crime ways which has made d.c. unsafe for people who come to visit, the millions of people who want to come visit here and for the residents of this city. i urge passage of this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you, mr. speaker. the distinguished gentleman from arizona invites us to believe that the people of washington, d.c. don't want to respond to spikes in crime in their own city. it's only in response to

hearings called by republican members of congress. and i think that's an affront to our fellow citizens who obviously care deeply about what's going on in their own city and i dare say a lot more than those of white house represent other jurisdictions. because we care principally about the places that we represent. and i'll jo say before yielding to my friend from the district of columbia that you don't have to look like a monarch or a tyrant to act like a monarch or a tyrant. and with that, i'm going to yield four minutes to the distinguished nonvoting delegate, the representative from the district of columbia, eleanor holmes norton. four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: i thank my good friend for yielding to me and i strongly oppose this radical, undemocratic and paternalistic

bill. as do the three top local elected district of columbia officials, mayor mural bowser, council chair phil mendleson, and d.c. attorney general brian schwab. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record their joint letter opposing this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. norton: before i discuss the substance of this bill i want to discuss democracy and the lack of it in the district of columbia. d.c. residents who have all the obligations of american citizenship have no voting representation in congress and congress has the ultimate say on local d.c. matters. while my republican colleagues are correct that congress has the constitutional authority to legislate on local d.c. matters,

their assertion that congress has a constitutional duty to do so is simply wrong. legislating on local d.c. matters is a choice. as the supreme court held in 1953 and i'm quoting, there is no constitutional barrier to the delegation by the congress of the -- to the district of columbia to full legislative power, end quote. d.c.'s local legislature has 13 members. the members are elected by d.c. residents. if d.c. residents do not like how the members vote, they can vote them out of office. that is called democracy. congress has 535 voting members. the members are elected by residents of their states. none are elected by d.c.

residents. if d.c. residents do not like how members vote on local matters, they cannot vote them out of office. that is the antithesis of democracy. the merits of this bill should be irrelevant. since there is never justification for congress legislating on local d.c. matters. however, i will discuss the bill. this bill would be the biggest rollback of d.c. self-government in a generation. this bill says the d.c. counsel may not, and i'm quoting, enact any act, resolution, or rule to change any criminal liability sentence in effect on the date of the enactment of the d.c. crimes act of 2024, end quote. this provision, which does not define the term criminal

liability, sentence is as poorly drafted as it is offensive. it takes away d.c.'s authority to increase or decrease statutory criminal penalties. if d.c. wanted to increase penalties for violent crimes, it could not do so. this bill could even be construed to prevent d.c. from establishing any new crimes at all. this bill also reduces the maximum age of eligibility for d.c., d.c.'s youth rehabilitation amendment act of 1985. d.c. is not the only jurisdiction to have such a so-called young adult offender law. alabama, florida, michigan, new york, south carolina, and vermont have such laws. the sponsor of this bill is from one of those six states.

the revolutionary war was fought to give consent of the governed and to end -- to end taxation without representation, yet d.c. residents cannot consent to any action taken by congress to pay full taxes. indeed, d.c. pays more federal taxes per capita than any state and more total federal taxes than 20 states. if house republicans cared about democratic principles or d.c. residents they would bring to the floor my d.c. statehood bill, h.r. 51, the washington, d.c. admission act, which would give d.c. residents voting representation in congress and full local self-g government. congress has the constitutional authority to rad mitt the state of washington, d.c., it simply lacks the will. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is

recognized. mr. donald: thank you, mr. speaker. i think it's important to reassert that the constitution is clear on this matter. that congress does have responsibilities and that the district of columbia is under the district of the united states congress. that has been clear since the beginning of the republic. with that, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. burchett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. burchett: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker. thank you. much has been made about the tight thofl bill but i would remind my friends across the aisle they had a bill called the inflation reduction act and it spent over $1 trillion and inflation has not been reduced. i want to thank you for allowing me to speak. mr. donalds, thank you, sir. right now, d.c. considers a criminal a youth offender if they're under 25 years old. yet you can be a member of congress at 25 years old. it seeps the city council believes that something magical

happens at the age of 25. it seems they believe that dadgum it, you're a child and then the next day you can serve in congress. they're trying to be politically correct as always by not prosecuting criminals and the city is suffering because of it. last year the house oversight committee held a hearing with washington, d.c.'s mayor on the rising crime in our nation's capital at the same time, mr. speaker, a carjacking was happening just up the street, less than a mile from us, where we are standing today. we can appreciate the irony there. but it's not surprising. carjackings an all other kinds of crimes are happening around washington at any given moment. motor vehicle at thes increased by 400% last year alone. homicide increased by 29%. and robberies increased by 65%. it is also worth noting that united states, tat most homicides are committed by people 20 to 24 years old, mr. speaker. yet the city council of our nation's capital is still pushing policies every day that

prevent criminals from being brought to justice. the d.c. crimes act forces washington, d.c., to change its definition of juvenile back to kids under 18 years old. it also stops judges from sentencing youth offenders below the mandatory minimum requirements and prevents washington from changing the current minimum sentencing laws. i urge my colleagues to have some basic common sense. i know that's lacking in washington. when people tell me something is made of common sense, i tell them they have in place in washington, d.c. today. that's apparent right here. i support this bill. thank you, mr. chairman, and i would tell that family in the back that had that sweet little baby boy making those noyces that he was not bothering us one bit. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. donalds: how much time is left in debate? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has 171/4 minutes.

the gentleman from maryland has 16 minutes remaining. mr. donalds: reserve. the chair will remind the rules do not allow references to persons in the gallery. mr. raskin: thank you, mr. speaker. no one on the other side has contradicted the plain commonsense interpretation of this bill which is that the district of columbia council will be disabled from increasing a criminal sentence again and the district of columbia council would never be able to create a new criminal offens like the they created for running a retail theft ring which is a lot of problem. i know maryland has legislated

on tay. i am wondering if you would yield for a question whether this is the deliberate intention of this legislation or just a mistake whether they don't accept that reading of the language of the bill? because we are voting on something far more drastic and sweeping than what was represented by the sponsors' original statement. i would yield momentarily for 30 seconds if you could answer my question. are we interpreting it properly? mr. donalds: in part, no. >> the lady from the district of columbia just read the section, it prohibits the council from enacting changes from existing criminal liebt sentences and does not prohibit the d.c. council from creating new crimes. mr. bishop: it would prevent

them -- mr. raskin: reclaiming my time. as i understand the answer the district of columbia could not increase the penalty for rape or child sex abuse. we might have a difference as to your second conclusion because it is an offense where it didn't exist and you are creating grave constitutional doubt about new criminal offenses that might be created. the first part is bad enough. i don't see -- excuse me. mr. bishop: does the gentleman care to yield? mr. raskin: no. the point is how is it tough on crime that the district of columbia cannot increase criminal penalties if it chooses to in response to local circumstances? i'll reserve my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. donalds: only thing i would say in response to the gentleman from maryland, the d.c. city council had ample opportunity to fix these issues and have done it recently. unless congress actually decides to use its authority, what will it make us think that the d.c. city council will act in the interest of the citizens of the district? the citizens in the district would love to have a safe city but the city council hasn't acted towards having a safety city. that is a problem. article 1, section 8, clause 17, the federal enclave is under the jurisdiction of the united states congress and we are acting under this legislation. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina,

mr. timmons. mr. timmons: d.c. is a modern day run. in the front door of our great nation. in my few short years serving the 4th district in south carolina i saw a city succumb. there are many factors at play here. i want to tell parents in my district that it is safe for the kids to visit on their school trip. i can't do that. i do the exact opposite. i tell them that d.c. is not safe and i have said time and time again that people have told me that they had serious issues. i guess it was a month ago. my commander officer in the air force was staying in the navy yard. i told him not to walk. and i said i bet you walked to dinner. i said there is an active

shooter outside your building. all of these years of defunding the police, it has never been more blatant. d.c. criminals have never acted more brazenly. in fact, just today at 1:40 this afternoon, this was three hours ago, and in broad daylight, a stabbing just blocks away. stabbing. 12 hours before that, an armed carjacking. last 24 hours. we know how bad it is here. we were on the g.w. campus where the mayor refused to obey the rule of law. the president of the university begged to enforce the rule of law and required an oversight hearing to do her job and tell officers to arrest people. an uber driver that fled

afghanistan, fled afghanistan, and he was driving uber eats, a bunch of children under the age of 20 and over the age of 15, stole his car and killed them and they are going to get out of jail within a year and no criminal history. are we serious right now? so, yes, the d.c. city council has lost the faith of this institution. just this congress, three members have been held at gunpoint or assaulted. three members of congress in the last 18 months. this is out of control. this is a small step in the right direction, but we have to respect the rule of law and we have to fund law enforcement. we should 3,000 law enforcement officers in washington, d.c.. you will be down to 1500 because the way the city council treats

law enforcement. these changes are mere steps in the right direction. a 25-year-old is not a child. and i can promise you this, in south carolina, a 16-year-old killed somebody, they are going to be in prison for a while. going to be in prison for quite a while and the fact they are not is why we are having to do this right now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. timmons: i appreciate d.c.'s desire to have self-rule, but there are responsibilities that will come along with that. and it seems that our nation is a nation in decline because of the lawlessness in washington, d.c.. and we have to get back on track and this is a step in the right direction. i thank my friend from florida for proposing this legislation. i encourage all of my colleagues to support it. i yield back.

dondz dndz reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: before the gentleman leaves the chamber and i will give him some data since he is legislating. in somerville, south carolina, a severe carjacking by three teenaged. in april, a man wanted for murder in rock hill was captured following another carjacking. i could give you a dozen of those, i don't think the answer would be to disenfranchise the people of south carolina or congress you superthe legislative authority or local authority there. my friend from florida described the district of a federal enclave. federal enclave is land like rockville, maryland. n.i.h. is a federal enclave.

this is the district set forth in article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the constitution. both of my friends over there say, well, we are going to take a small step in the right direction. how is it the right direction to did he prieive of the people of district of columbia to have control over their criminal sentencing. if they attack this legislation at the beginning of the year, they would have foreclosed the ability to increase criminal penalties across the board on a whole range of offenses and create new criminal offenses in the state. the gentleman from south carolina lectured the people of washington, d.c., about criminal in the events taking place here and of course there are criminal incidents taking place also in south carolina in the exact same

way, but how about something that took place closer to home. how about the violent mob insurrection where a mob incited by the ex-president assaulted police officers who were forced to deploy to the capital and 150 of them ended up hospitalized after being hit in the head or in its chest or by steel pipes, confederate, trump flags and american flags. and yet we have the ex-president and a number of people who are on that side of the aisle describing people who are in jail for that, the majority of having pled guilty for those offenses and the others convicted, calling those people hostages. a hostage is someone who has been illegally abducted like

hamas, and held for a financial or political ran some and there are people on that side of the aisle who call the prisoners who have been convicted after having been given every aspect of american due plows and calling them hostages or political prisoners, like aelection yes navalny or are mandela. they want to denounce a criminal violence. what about the most massive criminal violence that came right into this chamber forcing the senators and representatives to flee and won't say a word about it but they get up and denounce lawlessness and won't denounce that comes into the capitol of the united states. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair tell to reserve from engaging to presumptive nominees. mr. donalds: my friend from maryland has lost the debate and talking about other things that are not about the merits of this bill. i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. bishop. mr. bishop: i was about to comment, sooner or later you would expect that it would be a rant about donald trump. let's get back to the subject matter at hand. to clarify since the point has been clarified and continues to be repeated, here's what the d.c. council would be prohibited, enact any act, resolution or rule to change any criminal liability sentence in effect on the date of the enactment of the d.c. crimes act of 2024. nothing would keep the d.c. council from creating new

crimes. nothing whatsoever. and in fact, they would not be able to increase existing sent tbses for crimes but haven't shown any inclination to did that. and there is another mistakes and said you got to know the facts. he said that, quote, crime is down 16% in the past year in d.c. look a little closer. go to the web site. that's the metropolitan police department. that reduction in crime that was cited, that is only for this year to date. look at last year, 2023 in that situation, homicide up 35%. robbery up 67%. violent crime up 29% hornets

across the board. all crime total 26%. i know it's out of memory now because we are in the first few months of the next year. the victims haven't gone away and here's what the gentleman from maryland said the law professor that thomas jefferson would understand, the constitution that thomas jefferson signed, the congress shall have power to have cases over such district not exceeding 10-mile square in the acceptance of congress become the seat of government of the united states and to exercise like authority overall places purchased. . . it's not overwhelm the question of the interests of the 700,000 d.c. citizens, it's the 19 million americans who come to this seat of government every

year and are threatened by the recklessness of the d.c. council. and a moment's refresher how we got to this place. the d.c. council's radical rewrite of the entire criminal law that was reversed by h.r. res. 26. in which 31 democrats voted to disapprove along with the majority. two democrats from my home state. eight democrats couldn't bring themselves to vote. the rest of the extreme democrats voted to stay out of the way, let them do what they wanted to. the senate voted to disapprove. mr. donalds: another minute. mr. bishop: the senate voted to disapprove. 81-14. the president of the united states, joe biden, faithful democrat, signed the legislation. even though many extreme democrats supported the d.c. council's reckless action. and then the other matter, house joint resolution 42, to

disapprove the, quote, comprehensive policing and justice reform amendment act of 2022. which bowser, mayor bowser also vetoed and they overrode her veto. and did all kinds of stuff to leave the police officers at their tender mercies. they required juries to consider if officers consulted mental health behavioral health, or social workers before using deadly force. imposed hurdles for the use of riot gear and nonlethal munitions. eliminated officers and union representatives from police complaint records. restricted officers from using body cam footage in preparing reports. it's shear recklessness and should be changed. and the way to change is for congress to take back the authority over criminal sentencing. i yield back. mr. donalds: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized.

mr. raskin: i would like -- mr. raskin: i would like to thank the gentleman i cited for alt declines in crime and violent crime in the district of columbia in 2024. i do have to correct my friend and his history there might be students watching this. thomas jefferson never signed the constitution. he was on a diplomatic mission when the constitution was being signed in philadelphia. he did write the declaration of independence. the other side says bizarrely that the district of columbia council and the mayor should be denied the authority to increase criminal sentences forthwith because they have shown no inclination to increase criminal sentences. leave aside the absolute illogic of the argument, it's also false. because the district of columbia in the secure d.c. act passed just two months ago increased

criminal sentences across the board. which i'm afraid my friends from completely oblivious to when they started this legislation. they weren't aware of it. the people who are claiming to be speaking for the populace of washington, d.c., didn't know that the council had just acted to dramatically increase criminal penalties in the city. then they denied them the right to further increase criminal penalties in the city because they say they haven't shown any inclination to do so. which of course makes no sense and is also completely false. all of this is pure political theater. it's bad political theater. somebody decided a long time ago that it works for people who would never try to kick around their own state legislatures, own county council, or city councils to kick around the people of washington, d.c. my friends think they have scored some kind of huge

rhetorical coup pointing out article 17 of the constitution which says congress should exercise exclusive legislation over the district constituting the seat of government from land is ceded by various states. nobody on this side of the aisle, including the distinguished gentlelady from district of columbia, has denied that for a second. what we have said is this is a massive assault on home rule and an embarrassing one because it cuts completely against all of the rhetoric that we are hearing from our colleagues across the aisle. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. donalds: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. i'm prepared to close. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. raskin: i'm sorry did the gentleman say he's prepared to close? the speaker pro tempore: yes. mr. raskin: we are prepared to close. can you tell us how much time we have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has seven minutes remaining. mr. raskin: we are prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: i think we have made

some progress in this conversation because a plain reading of the distinguished gentleman from florida's legislation indicates that what he's telling the district of columbia is you may never increase criminal penalties again. the only time there can be an increase in criminal penalties in the district of columbia is if congress does t this congress has a hard time even keeping a speaker in place without them trying to vacate the chair and topple the speaker. this congress as the whole country knows has been absolute chaos and dysfunction and disorganization from the beginning. i don't blame the people from washington, d.c., who sent us these letters, the mayor, the council, the attorney general of d.c. from saying, thanks, but no thanks. we'll take it from here. the people in d.c. are perfectly able to decide what criminal offenses they need in the district of columbia, and how the sentences should be set. and fixed. they have got courts in the district of columbia, they've got a legislature in the d.c. d.

which is elected from the their eight boards and four at-large members and chairman of the council, and they have a mayor. they have advisory neighborhood commissions. i wonder if any of my colleagues over there are active in any of the wards or advisory neighborhood commissions where they live? i tend to doubt it. the people of d.c., i understand from congresswoman norton, are actually involved in the governance of their city and the management of their local affairs. yet in this totally ham-handed and comically dysfunctional attempt to score points against d.c. they come up with legislation which says, d.c. can never increase criminal penalties again when they are accusing d.c. of being too soft on crime, despite the fact that we are able to show that d.c. has tougher criminal sentences than many of the states represented by the members who have been speaking about this over the last several days. so, all of it feels a lot to me

like a silly election year stunt. i don't think anyone thinks that this is serious legislation. but i am glad that the other side has conceded that the bill means what it says. they want to strip the district of columbia of any power to increase criminal sentences in their city. and i simply think that that is a terrible form of public policy and is a major inroad against home rule over the last several decades when what we should be doing is giving the people of d.c. greater political self-government and giving them the rights to equal representation, which, of course, was the aforementioned jefferson's ideal for the country. if you go back and read the northwest ordinance, he thought every part of the country would eventually attain a level of political equality by admission to statehood through article 4 of the constitution.

that's the spirit of the constitution. not kicking around people who are fellow citizens because we think we have more power than them and score political points off them. why don't we have a hearing about statehood for the district of columbia and let's keep the engines of democracy, freedom, and political equality in the country moving. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. donalds: thank you, mr. speaker. the district of columbia thinks that you are to be tried as a minor if you are 23 years of age. nowhere else in the united states does that exist. nowhere. except in the district of columbia. the district of columbia city council has been derelict in ito provide for the safety and security for the residents of the district of columbia and the 19 million-plus americans who come to the federal enclave to visit the nation's capital.

for all the talk of political points that have been made in this debate, that's only come from my friend on the other side of the aisle. he's talked about everything from president trump to political talking points to political futures. he's talked very little to the reality that exists here in the nation's capital. it doesn't take much for anybody to just see whether it's on the nightly news or frankly just walking down the streets somewhere in the district of columbia that something has gone very, very wrong. even here in this very building members and their staffs have experienced that. our colleague from minnesota, representative craig, she was assaulted in an elevator in her own apartment building. our colleague across -- on the other side of this building, senator paul, his staffer was stabbed when walking home from work. the j texas, the democrat member of this chamber, mr. cuellar, he was robbed and carjacked with guns pointed at his head.

blocks away from the united states capitol. you see, mr. speaker, these are not political talking points. this is real life. and it's easy for the members to come in and out of this building when we have security apparatus around us every single day, but not take seriously what is happening in the streets of the nation's capital. this legislation takes that seriously. i will end with this, it's not a time for election year stunts. i agree with that. 100%. which is why this legislation is about having structural reforms to what has happened in the district of columbia. this is why the age for being tried as a minor is being decreased to under the age of 18. which mirrors what happens in every other part of the united states and should also occur here in the nation's capital. this is a good piece of legislation. i encourage my members, both

sides of the aisle, to vote for this. we have a responsibility to provide for a safe washington, d.c. that the citizens can enjoy. and that the people of the united states can enjoy. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this legislation. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1227, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to limit youth offender status in the district of columbia to individuals 18 years of age or younger, to direct the attorney general of the district of columbia to establish and operate a publicly accessible website containing updated statistics on juvenile crime in the district of columbia, to amend the district of columbia home rule act to prohibit the council of the

district of columbia from enacting changes to existing criminal liability sentences, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from florida is recognized. the gentleman from florida. mr. donalds: we request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays whether rise. will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on passage of h.r. 7530 will be followed by two-minute votes on adoption of

house resolution 1210, passage of h.r. 7581, passage of h.r. 7343, and motions to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4510, h.r. 4310, h.r. 4581, h.r. 6960, h.r. 1797, h.r. 6572, h.r. 6572, and h.r. 3950. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]