[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 84 (Thursday, May 18, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2433-H2441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
 EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND CONDEMNING 
     EFFORTS TO DEFUND OR DISMANTLE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 398, I call up 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 40) expressing support for 
local law enforcement officers and condemning efforts to defund or 
dismantle local law enforcement agencies, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 398, the 
concurrent resolution is considered read.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 40

       Whereas our brave men and women in local law enforcement 
     work tirelessly to protect the communities they serve;
       Whereas local law enforcement officers are tasked with 
     upholding the rule of law and ensuring public safety;
       Whereas local law enforcement officers selflessly put 
     themselves in harm's way to fight crime, get drugs off our 
     streets, and protect the innocent;
       Whereas, in the summer of 2020, looting, rioting, and 
     violence in major cities caused the destruction of many 
     shops, restaurants, and businesses;
       Whereas, in 2020, the United States tallied more than 
     21,000 murders--the highest total since 1995 and 4,900 more 
     than in 2019;
       Whereas leftist activists and progressive politicians 
     called for the defunding and dismantling of local police 
     departments across the country and actively encouraged 
     resentment toward local law enforcement;
       Whereas the defund the police movement vilifies and 
     demonizes local law enforcement officers and puts them at 
     greater risk of danger;
       Whereas many local jurisdictions defunded their police 
     departments and saw a subsequent increase in violent crime;
       Whereas violent leftist extremists have repeatedly attacked 
     and assaulted local law enforcement officers; and
       Whereas local law enforcement officers deserve our respect 
     and profound gratitude: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That Congress--
       (1) recognizes and appreciates the dedication and devotion 
     demonstrated by the men and women of local law enforcement 
     who keep our communities safe; and
       (2) condemns calls to defund, disband, dismantle, or 
     abolish the police.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable 
for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
designees.
  After 1 hour of debate, it shall be in order to consider the 
amendment printed in part C of House Report 118-59, if offered by the 
Member designated in the report, which shall be considered read, shall 
be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not 
be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
to insert extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 40.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 40 expresses our support for the brave men 
and women who serve in law enforcement across our great Nation. These 
individuals put their lives on the line every single day to protect our 
communities and keep us safe, and it is time that we acknowledged their 
selflessness and dedication.
  Law enforcement officers are the backbone of our justice system. They 
are the first line of defense against crime, and they work tirelessly 
to ensure that our neighborhoods are safe places to live, work, and 
raise families.
  While most people fear danger and flee, police officers rush toward 
the threat, and they do so without hesitation or reservation. They are 
truly the embodiment of courage and bravery.
  Unfortunately, over the past several years, we have seen an 
unprecedented level of hostility toward law enforcement in this 
country. The defund the police movement greatly fueled this hostility.
  We have seen police officers subjected to unwarranted scrutiny, 
harassment, and even violence. We have seen protests turn into riots 
with law enforcement officers becoming targets of angry mobs. This kind 
of behavior is not only unacceptable, but it is also dangerous and 
destructive. It undermines the very fabric of our society and puts 
innocent lives at risk.
  As a former prosecutor, I am acutely aware of the vital role that law 
enforcement plays in keeping our communities safe. I have seen 
firsthand the sacrifices that these men and women make, and I am truly 
grateful for their service.
  That is why I am committed to doing everything in my power to support 
our law enforcement officers and to ensure that they have the resources 
and tools they need to do their jobs effectively. They are the unsung 
heroes of our communities, and we owe them a debt of gratitude that 
could never truly be repaid.
  Let us work together to ensure that they have the support they need 
to continue their important work and to keep our neighborhoods safe for 
generations to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of 
this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is nothing more than empty rhetoric 
designed to score political points. It does nothing to help our law 
enforcement officers do their jobs. It does nothing to solve crimes or 
promote justice. It does nothing to take deadly weapons like those used 
to target law enforcement off our streets, and it does nothing to make 
our communities safer.
  It is also wildly misleading and full of incendiary rhetoric that 
does not match reality. Very conspicuously, it even fails to recognize 
the service or contributions of Federal, State, or Tribal law 
enforcement officers.
  It is worth remembering that when the Republicans passed their rules 
package at the beginning of the Congress, it included several 
supposedly ``ready to go on day one'' bills.
  An earlier version of this resolution was included in that list, but 
it never made it to the floor. Now we know why. The problem is that the 
original version praised all law enforcement, not just local law 
enforcement, as this resolution does.
  Why was that a problem?
  Because as we have learned in recent months, House Republicans now 
support defunding the police at the Federal level. Don't take my word 
for it, Mr. Speaker. Chairman Jordan told FOX News that he wants to 
``look at the appropriations process and limit funds going to some of 
these agencies.''
  He later made clear he was referring to the FBI and the Department of 
Justice.
  Mr. Biggs has called directly for defunding those agencies, and Mr. 
Gaetz has introduced a bill that would eliminate the ATF altogether.

[[Page H2434]]

  Limiting the resolution to local law enforcement also helps 
Republicans paper over an embarrassing split in their caucus over 
whether even to recognize the contributions of our brave Capitol Police 
officers who protected us on January 6.
  I remind Members that 41 Republicans voted against awarding 
Congressional Gold Medals to the Capitol Police officers and the D.C. 
Metropolitan Police Department in recognition of their service on 
January 6.
  That must be why the resolution states that violent leftist 
extremists have attacked law enforcement, but it makes no mention of 
the violent mob of far-right extremists and white supremacists who 
stormed the Capitol that day injuring 140 police officers with five 
officers losing their lives in the days after.
  H. Con. Res. 40 is a hopelessly misleading resolution that omits 
crucial context and ignores crime trends in the country, including the 
disturbing rise in gun violence and the higher per capita murder rate 
in States won by Donald Trump.
  While Republicans want to talk tough with nonbinding resolutions 
about funding the police--local police that is--it was Democrats who 
passed bill after bill last Congress to actually fund and support the 
police.
  So where were Republicans when Democrats went about the serious work 
of legislating?
  When given the opportunity to put action behind their cheap rhetoric, 
time and again, Republicans voted ``no.'' For example, last Congress 
Democrats advanced the Invest to Protect Act which would have 
authorized $300 million in grants to law enforcement agencies with 
fewer than 125 officers to smaller localities.
  This legislation passed with bipartisan support, but 55 Republican 
Members voted against it.
  Democrats also advanced the VICTIM Act led by Congresswoman and 
former police chief Val Demings which would have provided grants 
totaling up to $100 million per year to law enforcement agencies to 
help them solve violent crimes and close outstanding cases.
  Mr. Speaker, 178 Republicans voted against it.
  Democrats advanced the assault weapons ban which was supported by the 
Major Cities Chiefs Association and the National Organization of Black 
Law Enforcement Executives because they know that these weapons of war 
are used to murder law enforcement officers and to terrorize their 
communities.
  Nearly every Republican voted ``no.''
  House Democrats worked with Republican Senator John Cornyn--who is 
not someone known to be soft on crime--to pass the Law Enforcement De-
Escalation Training Act, a bill that increases safety for law 
enforcement and community members alike.
  This bipartisan bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent, but when 
it came to the House, 159 Republicans voted against it.
  This is not and never has been a serious approach to legislating.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 40 is a wasted opportunity to advance 
meaningful legislation that would support the men and women of law 
enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will mention in response to the gentleman from New 
York's remarks about empty rhetoric, that this resolution says that 
Congress recognizes and appreciates the dedication and devotion 
demonstrated by the men and women of local law enforcement who keep our 
communities safe and condemns calls to defund, disband, dismantle, or 
abolish the police.
  This is hardly empty rhetoric when we are thanking America's finest 
for the work that they do to protect us.
  I also appreciate the distinction that the gentleman tried to make 
and the great difference that we have when Democrats across this 
country called for defunding local police departments, they did so in 
the face of rising crime.
  What was the congressional response to the colleagues in various 
parts of the country embarrassing Democrat Members in the House?
  Of course, they did what Democrats do so well. They threw money at a 
problem. They tried to cover up the embarrassment of defunding police 
at a time when rising crime was occurring by throwing money at a 
problem.
  We are now faced with $31.5 trillion of debt because of strategies 
like that, and we have to recognize that that no longer works.
  Yes, there were Republicans who stepped up and voted knowing that the 
vote might cause some commercials and some other issues about how they 
don't support police, when the reality is that an overwhelming 
percentage of police funding comes from local government--as it should.
  Finally, the ranking member talks about how there have been efforts 
with some of my colleagues to hold Federal agencies responsible for 
their actions to make sure that Federal agencies don't overstep their 
authority.
  At one point in time, the civil libertarians in this country were on 
that side of the aisle. Now it appears that the ATF, the FBI, and other 
agencies can overstep their authority and not be held accountable. It 
is a sad day when we can't come together and agree that this country is 
stronger and better when we don't allow the Federal Government to spy 
on our citizens, to interfere with political campaigns, and to 
otherwise disrupt our normal life outside of their law enforcement 
functions.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to 
speak on this issue today. It is an important issue.
  I remember my first townhall after I was elected to Congress. We had 
1,000 people show up. Many of them were wearing resistance T-shirts. 
The radical left was busing people in actually from California to 
protest my townhall. That was fine. That is what it is about.
  What wasn't fine was the ridiculous number of threats to me, my 
family, and my staff.
  That is when I remembered from days in my legal practice my gratitude 
for the police who came and made sure that the crowd was protected and 
my staff was protected. They even placed two undercover police officers 
flanking my wife because she had been threatened, as well.
  Thank you. Thank you to the men and women of law enforcement.
  I thank the police chiefs and the rank and file in Apache Junction, 
in Mesa, in Chandler, in Gilbert, in Queen Creek, and in Maricopa 
County. The sheriff is a Democrat, but I think he does a pretty good 
job; not like some of the other folks that I will be talking about 
in just a minute.

  I thank the sheriffs and their departments in local law enforcement 
in the border communities in Yuma County, Cochise County, and Pinal 
County who are having to take up the slack because of what is going on 
on the border. The Biden administration is allowing people to just run 
rampant across our border. It is unbelievable.
  I thank them. They don't run away. They run toward, to save us. They 
run toward the people who would harm us, and they provide the rule of 
law.
  Mr. Speaker, you can't have freedom if you don't have respect and 
rule of law.
  Now let's talk about the Federal agencies for just a second. A story 
just came out last weekend about the bomber who put the bombs over at 
the NRCC and DCCC on January 6. Those were inert bombs. It turns out 
the FBI had surveillance and film of that person placing those inert 
bombs. They had video of them moving around on the Metro, moving on out 
to the suburban D.C. area getting into a car.
  They have the license plate of the car, they have the tracking, and 
they have the credit card that paid for the Metro that that bomber 
used.
  When they went to try to investigate, the leadership in the FBI 
halted that investigation. The Durham report has come out. I urge you 
to read it, Mr. Speaker.
  I heard some of you talk about it. I am not sure you read it.
  Any objective analysis of that report will tell you that the 
Department of Justice and the FBI were working with the Clinton 
campaign to create a false criminal allegation. We are still talking 
about the Russian hoax.

[[Page H2435]]

  


                              {time}  0930

  It is unbelievable. As some have said, the DOJ and the FBI abandoned 
their standards from the start. They had no predicate for that 
investigation. They knew it at the time. I think we should hold them 
accountable.
  You want to keep funding them? Fine. You keep funding them, but you 
are going to have to reform them someway, somehow.
  I, like my friend from Colorado, remember the time when it was the 
Democrats who often called for civil liberties and the protection of 
civil liberties from the Federal police apparatus. That is where I am. 
We have now come to a point where we have to protect our citizens from 
our own Federal police apparatus.
  I will also get into this notion of federalizing the police. You 
can't simply always throw Federal grant money at local law enforcement.
  At least in Arizona, when I talk to our friends in policing there, 
they will tell you: We take this money with trepidation because the 
Feds always want to take over.
  They don't understand. I will just tell you, we don't understand 
Seattle. Why would you come to Congress and say you control policing in 
Seattle, you control it in Phoenix, or you control it in the town of 
Gilbert? Why would we turn that over to the Feds? That is too much.
  Now, I want to share some comments that we have heard over the last 
couple of years from some of my colleagues across the aisle.
  From the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), with reducing the NYPD 
budget, stating: ``There should be substantial cuts to the police 
budget and a reallocation of those funds to where we need them.''
  The minority leader, asked on CNN, expressed his openness to 
defunding the police when he said: ``You have to look at that on a 
case-by-case basis.''
  Cori Bush was the vice chair of the Crime and Federal Government 
Surveillance Subcommittee. She said: ``It is not a slogan.'' 
``Defunding the police'' is not a slogan. She said: ``It is not a 
slogan. It is a mandate for keeping our people alive. Defund the 
police.''
  When she was challenged about that, she further said: `` `Defund the 
police' is not the problem.'' She continues to always double down on 
that.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez) also said: ``This 
is what happens when leaders sign blank check after blank check to 
militarize police, CBP, et cetera, while letting violence go unchecked. 
We need answers. And we need to defund.''
  When New York decided to cut a billion dollars from their police 
force, Representative Ocasio-Cortez thought the cuts did not go far 
enough, stating: ``Defunding police means defunding police.''
  Representative Jamaal Bowman said: ``We don't need police with lethal 
weapons carrying out routine traffic stops. Reallocate police funding 
to unarmed traffic forces to remove even the possibility of state-
sanctioned manslaughter.''
  Representative Jayapal said it is completely reasonable for us to 
``shift significant sums of money from police'' and invest in people.
  Representative Ilhan Omar said: ``We need to completely dismantle the 
Minneapolis Police Department because here is the thing. There is a 
cancer. . . . The Minneapolis Police Department is rotten to the root, 
and so when we dismantle, we get rid of that cancer.''
  Representative Ayanna Pressley said: ``The defund movement isn't new. 
Folks are just finally listening.''
  Representative Rashida Tlaib said: ``When we say #DefundPolice, what 
we mean is people are dying, and we need to invest in people's 
livelihoods instead.''
  So don't tell me now that you can't vote for this resolution, which 
honors local police enforcement and condemns the defund police 
movement.
  Don't tell me that is idle rhetoric. That is real. That is sincere, 
and that ought to be what the position of this body is.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker referred to some 
remarks I made, and they are accurate.
  What I said was that substantial resources should be taken from the 
police and given to mental health services, and that was done. About a 
billion dollars was taken from the police department in New York City 
by the city council and the mayor and given to mental health services.
  That made sense. Why? Because when someone is acting out on the 
subway, when someone is threatening on the subway, what you usually 
need is a mental health professional there, not a policeman who doesn't 
know how to handle it.
  Since a lot of resources were devoted to mental health, the situation 
in the subways generally and on the streets has gotten much better. It 
has worked.
  I can't speak for anybody else, but I can say that when the gentleman 
says we should honor local police, he is also saying we should not 
honor Federal police.
  This resolution does not honor Federal police. It does not honor the 
ATF, the FBI, or thousands of Federal law enforcement officers, the law 
enforcement officers who protected us on January 6 from a far-right 
attack.
  It talks about leftist violence, but it refuses to talk about 
rightwing violence. It is not a balanced or fair resolution.
  It seeks to give a distorted picture of what is going on in this 
country, and that is why we cannot support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Nadler for the time.
  I served the first 3\1/2\ years of my legal career in the police 
department. I had a badge and a gun. I know policemen as well, if not 
better, than almost anybody in this body.
  I tried to give them a gun yesterday because there was a bill on the 
floor to let them take their revolvers with them when they retired in 
good standing, but the Republicans had it amended to where they could 
also take automatic weapons and didn't have to be in good standing. We 
can't do things purely for the police.

  In this situation, I offered an amendment to advocate the positions 
of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and other police 
organizations to say that we should have limits on weapons on the 
streets, on armor-piercing bullets, and on assault weapons.
  Police don't want those on the streets against them. Yet, it wasn't 
allowed to be heard. It was offered twice again by Mr. Cicilline. It 
wasn't allowed to be heard.
  Just like when children are killed, when people are killed in clubs, 
when people are killed in churches, when people are killed in Las Vegas 
on the streets, this is thoughts and prayers because the NRA and the 
concern of people having guns and bullets comes before police and their 
protection.
  This is thoughts and prayers, and it is police memorial week lite.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, before recognizing the next speaker, let me 
also point out that this resolution also claims that progressive 
politicians actively encourage resentment toward local law enforcement.
  When we tried to remove such misleading claims during the markup, 
Republicans said no. We tried to unite behind what should have been the 
point of this resolution, support of all law enforcement without 
language that shamed or demonized Members and misled Americans, but 
Republicans refused. That is another reason we have to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
resolution, and I do so sadly because there are many things that my 
good colleague across the aisle from Colorado and I agree on and work 
on. This is unequivocally not one of them.
  The reason I am so distraught by this resolution is because I am the 
proud chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. We are a caucus of 
102 Members in this body. We have done many wonderful things for our 
constituents and people across the country.
  In fact, we have even worked with the Freedom Caucus, the gentleman 
from Arizona, to take on some things around accountability of law 
enforcement, surveillance, privacy rights--many issues that we agree 
on.

[[Page H2436]]

  The characterization of progressives within this resolution makes it 
absolutely impossible to support the resolution.
  I think, unfortunately, that is the point that my friends are trying 
to make. They are trying to make us vote against a resolution that 
supports law enforcement by inserting these provisions that are 
characterizations that are absolutely harmful and encourage hate 
against us as progressives representing our constituents.
  Now, we already passed a resolution honoring law enforcement this 
week, but this resolution literally makes it impossible for us to 
support.
  I want to raise a couple of points about this. My colleague from 
Arizona said we want to hold Federal law enforcement accountable. Well, 
that is exactly what Democrats sought to do when we passed the George 
Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which not a single Republican voted for.
  We need accountability of all of our agencies at all levels. That 
doesn't mean we don't appreciate the work that those agencies do. We 
absolutely do.
  As somebody who experienced violent threats against my life and my 
family's life from a man showing up with a gun at my house, I was 
defended by our local law enforcement, and I am incredibly grateful to 
them.
  I resent the characterization that somehow we progressives do not 
support law enforcement just because we want to have accountability in 
our communities so that Black and Brown people can walk down the 
streets and feel safe.
  In addition, this is not about honoring law enforcement because, last 
week, I tried to introduce an amendment in committee that said if we 
are going to honor law enforcement, then let's honor the brave men and 
women of the United States Capitol Police and all levels of local, 
State, and Federal law enforcement that defended us in this body on 
January 6, 2021, when a violent group of rightwing MAGA extremists came 
and launched an insurrection against this body.
  I was trapped in the gallery right there, right there in those seats.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, long after other people were evacuated from 
the gallery, some of my friends and I were trapped there. We saw 
everything happen.
  I introduced an amendment to honor those Federal law enforcement 
people, and do you know what? Republicans could have taken it and voted 
against it if they wanted to show where they stand, but they didn't. 
They hid behind a ridiculous assertion of germaneness and essentially 
silenced our voices.

  I think we have to be real about what this resolution is, and with 
great respect to my friend from Colorado, we want accountability of all 
agencies.
  They want to defend Federal law enforcement. We want to honor all law 
enforcement, including those who defended us here at the Capitol on 
January 6.
  Let my Republican colleagues call out that it was an insurrection on 
January 6 and that our Federal law enforcement and local law 
enforcement that defended us here deserve the same honor that they are 
planning to give to local law enforcement.
  Let's honor all law enforcement, and let's take out the references to 
progressives, which I take great offense to.
  Mr. Speaker, I vote ``no'' on this resolution, and I call on my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this partisan and, frankly, hypocritical 
resolution.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I quote my good friend from the State of Washington. 
``Law enforcement as a whole has a culture of brutality that you cannot 
deny if you look at all of these incidents. . . . Most of the 
protesters are calling for a complete transformation of policing?''
  To paraphrase, this reporter writes, Jayapal said that governments 
should ``shift significant sums of money from police'' and put it in 
other community-based programs.
  I am happy to work with my friend and cosponsor a January 6 
resolution of some type thanking the police officers.
  Outside the door of my office in the Rayburn Building, there is a 
``Thank You, Capitol Police'' sign. There is a flag representing the 
dedication that police officers have flying outside my door. I 
absolutely thank the Capitol Police for their hard work.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. Speaker, I do think we need to look at what the FBI, ATF, and 
some other agencies have done in a fair, responsible, nonpartisan way 
and address some of those issues. I actually think I probably will work 
with my friend on this, also.
  Some of my colleagues have started that process with an 
appropriations angle. That is something I will look at. I may support 
it. I may not. You may probably not. However, we have other ways to 
deal with Federal law enforcement that have overstepped.
  I also agree with my friend that an overwhelming percentage of 
Federal law enforcement agents are great, hardworking people who 
protect us from foreign terrorists and all sorts of violence in this 
country, organized crime, other things that aren't dealt with as well 
at the local level, and I appreciate what they have done.
  The leadership in some of those agencies has gone astray, in my 
opinion, and that is why we need to take a serious look at them, but I 
thank my friend for her comments, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the gentleman from 
Colorado wants to honor Federal law enforcement personnel who defended 
us on January 6 and otherwise, which leads me to the question of why 
the Republicans refused to let us have an amendment to that effect in 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Morelle).
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Nadler for yielding, my 
longtime friend and distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the thousands of brave men and 
women of Federal, State, and Tribal law enforcement that were 
intentionally left out of the resolution before the House, H. Con. Res. 
40, by the Republican majority. That includes, as has been described, 
omitting the United States Capitol Police, who heroically defended this 
very Chamber on January 6 from armed insurrectionists intent on 
disrupting the peaceful transfer of power in this Nation, who gave life 
and limb to defend the American democratic experiment. That to me is 
worthy of recognition in this resolution. It is the very least we 
should and could do.
  I am privileged to serve as the ranking member of the Committee on 
House Administration, the committee charged with ensuring the safety 
and security of all who work and visit here.
  This week, my committee heard testimony from the chief of the United 
States Capitol Police. The chief testified about the enduring impact 
that January 6 has had on the force and the physical and mental scars 
the officers still carry.
  How did the committee's majority respond?
  They blamed the department.
  They didn't blame the former President who urged his supporters to 
come to Washington, claiming that he would march to the Capitol with 
them.
  They didn't blame the insurrectionists that came armed with guns, 
knives, tasers, and used poles bearing the American flag to viciously 
beat Capitol Police officers.
  They didn't blame the elected officials that were complicit in the 
former President's corrupt scheme to retain power.
  No, they blamed the department.
  Since my colleagues across the aisle won't do it, allow me to do it: 
To every one of the nearly 2,000 sworn Capitol Police officers, thank 
you. You deserve to be in this resolution. We thank you not just for 
your actions on that day, but for every single day. We have your backs, 
just as you always have ours.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about what this 
resolution is really about. No, it is not just about supporting local 
law enforcement. It is also about trying to attack and vilify

[[Page H2437]]

the Black Lives Matter movement and the activism that has helped shape 
our Nation and helped our Nation more clearly see the injustices 
carried out in our communities.
  In 2020, I myself was on the forefront of this movement. Alongside 
the world, I watched online, outraged over the killing and lynching of 
George Floyd, a man who did not deserve to die at the hands of a police 
choke hold while he called out for his mother.
  Alongside the world, I was outraged over the loss of Breonna Taylor, 
a young woman who did not deserve to be shot dead in her own home.
  Like millions across this country, I marched for change, marched to 
fight for our voices to be heard, marched to fight for a world where 
that injustice does not exist, and marched in a nonviolent way 
alongside my community in central Florida.
  I saw the pain and the hurt of so many who had spent their lives 
living in a nation where they feared their well-being every time they 
stepped outside of their home due to negative interactions with law 
enforcement. Not every interaction, but many interactions.
  We fought for public safety that centers the community so we can 
truly tackle crime and conditions that breed it.
  I believed then what I believe now: The color of your skin and how 
much money you have in the bank should not determine the treatment you 
get in the eyes of the law.
  The color of your skin and how much money you have in the bank should 
not be the determining factor of whether you live or die.
  No one deserves to die because they are Black. No one deserves to die 
because they are poor.
  Yet, today, we are voting on a resolution that does nothing but to 
divide us as a country.
  It has nothing to do with really supporting police. It has everything 
to do with vilifying a movement of people and everything to do with 
trying to rewrite history to make what was a global, mainly nonviolent 
protest seem evil.
  You can pass all the sham resolutions you want, but you cannot take 
away our stories. I remember being tear-gassed, maced, arrested, and 
jailed on the streets of my own hometown. Today, I get to represent 
those same streets in the United States Congress.
  You cannot whitewash this history. These stories live on in Black 
Lives Matter.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose this 
resolution, a deeply partisan, messaging tactic from House Republicans 
who are more focused on inflaming divisions in our country than on 
working for the American people.
  If Republicans cared about public safety, they would work to address 
the gun violence epidemic in our Nation, which even law enforcement 
says is out of control.
  If they really cared about law enforcement, they would not try to 
defund agencies like the ATF and FBI.
  This resolution is harmful and misleading. Violent leftist extremists 
and progressive politicians do not want to defund law enforcement. This 
characterization is a corrupt narrative that runs counter to the real 
conversations that Americans want to have about the issues their 
communities face.
  The true irony here is that in the same breath that they denounce 
these so-called violent leftist extremists, they stay silent on the 
extremists from their own party that stormed the Capitol and attacked 
the United States Capitol Police, men and women still working here 
today, disrespected every single day by my colleagues.
  Silence on this issue.
  Republicans are wasting time with empty bills and malignant rhetoric.
  Yes, absolutely, we should be investing in people's livelihoods. Why 
is that wrong?
  How come we cannot support good public safety and work to keep people 
alive, all people?
  A study just came out yesterday that said Black people are twice as 
likely to die than anyone else just because we are Black, and that 
includes interacting with law enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that we vote ``no'' on this 
resolution.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make one thing absolutely clear. There is not 
a single Republican in the United States House of Representatives, to 
my knowledge, that does not condemn the violent acts on January 6; 
period, end of story.
  If somebody wants to work on a resolution condemning the violence on 
January 6, I welcome that and will work with them, but let's not talk 
about January 6 when we are talking about a bill that is designated and 
intended to compliment and uplift those who have been the targets of 
really destructive action in terms of the defund the police movement.
  I have heard my good friend from Washington--one of the leaders of 
the Progressive Caucus here in the House--say that Progressives in the 
House who we have quoted were not involved in that. That is fine. 
However, certainly the leftists in this country moved to defund the 
police. They succeeded.
  As a result, we have seen rising crime, we have seen more victims, 
and nobody on their side--nobody--takes accountability for the fact 
that there are more murder victims, there are more robbery victims, 
there are more people getting their cars hijacked, there are more 
crimes being committed in this country as a result of failed leftist 
policies.
  If you want to talk about January 6, let's work together and thank 
the Capitol Police. You want to talk about defunding the police, you 
want to talk about how we need to uplift the police for their great 
work, then we need to pass this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman from 
Colorado say he is interested in a resolution praising the Capitol 
Police and so forth, which makes it all the more puzzling why the 
Republicans refused to let us consider an amendment to that effect to 
this resolution in committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for being so 
eloquent on where we are today.
  Let me read the headline of this legislation, H. Con. Res. 40, 
expressing support for local law enforcement officers. Broadly 
supported all across America.
  Every day we are supporting our local law enforcement, but as well we 
are supporting our Federal law enforcement that are right in my 
district today holding a meeting, men and women who put their lives on 
the line.
  I don't know why we couldn't on this last day of National Police 
Week, as we began the week, as I indicated, and repeat over and over 
again, that I was there for this ceremony that I have gone to every 
year, which has honored those who have fallen in battle.
  They had everyone represented. Everyone was in brotherhood and 
sisterhood. Everyone was embracing families and those in law 
enforcement. No one asked for your Democratic ticket or your Republican 
ticket. All they were grateful for is you had come to honor and 
recognize the importance of the work that they do.
  This could have been a place where we showed to the Nation the 
reasoning of our hearts and our minds.
  I offered an amendment to include Federal law enforcement. How dare 
we ignore them on this day?
  We cannot ignore January 6. We cannot ignore the Capitol Police, 
along with those who came to help, who will always have the scars of 
that horrific day.
  Why? Because we have never seen in our modern-day eyes an attack on 
the United States Capitol that was not in war.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to say, yes, I 
support local law enforcement. Never have my lips ever said the words 
that would take dollars away from those personnel, their salaries, and 
all that they need to do.

[[Page H2438]]

  I don't know why in a resolution that speaks about honor that we have 
to mix not even apples and oranges but apples and stench. There is no 
reason to attack anyone in this. Put a resolution about how much you 
hate the folks on the other side of the aisle; we will debate that. I 
don't hate them.
  What we tried to do in committee is to say let us make this a 
resolution, Federal, State and local folk, and let us not talk about 
folk who are dismantling anything because I don't know Democrats who 
stood outside of a DA's office and tried to dismantle them. They have 
an independent decision, right, to make. They are elected by the 
people. If they are not at the level that the people want, they are 
gone.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to amend this from the floor. Let 
this be an amendment that we can all vote for. This is my last word: I 
support local and Federal law enforcement.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I support Federal, State and local law 
enforcement. I support those that are in my district right now.
  I would offer to say, aren't we examples for young people?
  Don't we want our children to raise up and support law enforcement 
and see all of us standing together and not dividing?
  Don't we want good policing, good police relationships?
  None of that is a divide. It is a unity, and it represents the 
Constitution of the United States of America.
  I tell you that the officers that I engage with believe in it. I ask 
my colleagues to decide to do something better than this legislation.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, it is highly disingenuous for my colleagues to 
suggest that because this resolution doesn't thank all sorts of other 
groups that we can't thank local law enforcement.
  This resolution doesn't thank Governors. It doesn't thank Lieutenant 
Governors. It doesn't thank secretaries of State. It doesn't thank 
State attorneys general. It doesn't thank the generals and admirals at 
the Pentagon. It doesn't thank the folks who are working so hard in the 
cafeteria to provide us with food today. It doesn't thank a lot of 
people.
  It does thank local law enforcement, and for that we should unite. 
For that, we should come together. For that, we should overcome these 
ridiculous arguments and pat someone on the back.
  Then let's work toward another resolution. Let's make sure we thank 
those FBI agents who are working in the field, not the ones who planned 
to dismantle our political system, but the ones who are working in the 
field to protect us. Let's thank those ATF agents who are arresting 
convicted felons who are in possession of a firearm. Let's thank them. 
Let's thank Federal law enforcement. Let's thank the Capitol Police for 
their great work on January 6.
  Don't vote against this resolution thanking local police officers 
just because it is not broad enough and doesn't include every single 
category you can think of.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, if the gentleman wanted to support our Federal police, the 
ATF, the FBI, the Capitol Police, he had the opportunity in committee, 
and the Republicans refused to let us consider that.
  We have all of these statements from people like the chairman of the 
committee saying defund the FBI, defend the ATF. This is being a 
little, shall we say--I don't want to use the word ``hypocritical,'' 
but I can't think of a different word.
  We should oppose this resolution because it is blatantly one-sided, 
it blames leftist agitators improperly, and it does not deal with 
Federal law enforcement agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, police week ought to be a unifying event, a 
time when we can all come together in a bipartisan fashion to recognize 
and support the men and women of law enforcement who risk their lives 
to keep us and our communities safe.
  Instead of offering serious legislation, Republicans have brought 
forward misleading and incendiary political talking points that will 
neither protect law enforcement nor enhance public safety.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this resolution, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my colleague from 
New York, but I reiterate what this resolution is about and what it 
says.
  Congress recognizes and appreciates the dedication and devotion 
demonstrated by the men and women of local law enforcement who keep our 
communities safe and condemns calls to defund, disband, dismantle, or 
abolish the police.
  It is absolutely correct that this resolution doesn't include 
everybody and everything. There will be time in this Congress where we 
can work together to do that. To not pass this resolution, to not vote 
for this resolution during police week is a slap in the face to local 
law enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, I invite all the people who are watching today and all 
Americans to tune in to the weaponization committee as they listen to 
witnesses, whistleblowers from Federal agencies, talking about the 
abuses in those Federal agencies.
  It would be inappropriate, until we reach conclusions, until we pass 
legislation protecting Americans and protecting our political process, 
for us to take that extra step with Federal law enforcement.
  I have said over and over, I absolutely respect the men and women who 
are on the streets in Federal law enforcement protecting us. It is the 
leadership that we have issues with at times. That is not in this 
resolution. This resolution is a unifying resolution, and I hope my 
friends on the other side of the aisle can join us in thanking local 
law enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 40.
  I want to start by thanking law enforcement for all the work they do 
to keep our communities safe. Officers consistently put their lives on 
the line. Each year during National Police Week, I place a poster 
outside of my office honoring Minnesota's fallen law enforcement 
officers.
  In my work as an appropriator, you know that I strongly support 
funding for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants and 
Byrne JAG Justice Assistance grants. These are funds that directly 
support local law enforcement. Law enforcement entities were 
prioritized in my FY22, FY23, and FY24 Community Project Funding 
requests, with $4,500,000 secured for Ramsey and Washington County law 
enforcement projects that are improving public safety in my home 
district.
  Unfortunately, the House Republican majority's resolution does not 
simply express support for our law enforcement. It also includes 
language explicitly polarizing and misleading in nature, referring only 
to ``left-wing'' extremists but failing to acknowledge the right-wing 
extremist violence that has proliferated in recent years. For example, 
the attack on our U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, that resulted in the 
deaths of five U.S. Capitol Police officers and lasting injuries for 
many more.
  It is unfortunate that with this resolution, which should be focused 
on highlighting the important work law enforcement officers do every 
day, Republicans chose to use rhetoric to score political points with 
their base.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania). All time for 
debate has expired.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. D'Esposito

  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I have amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Insert after the eighth clause of the preamble the 
     following (and redesignate provisions accordingly):
       Whereas calls to ``defund'', ``disband'', ``dismantle'', or 
     ``abolish'' the police should be condemned and rule of law 
     should be strictly maintained;
       Whereas local law enforcement officers take an oath to 
     never betray the public trust;
       Whereas in the course of investigations into officers who 
     have allegedly exhibited misconduct, local law enforcement 
     should have certain rights to ensure a fair administration of 
     justice, including--
       (1) a local law enforcement officer's inherent right to 
     self-defense against physical threats;

[[Page H2439]]

       (2) a local law enforcement officer's right to legal 
     recourse if a civilian attempts to assault the local law 
     enforcement officer;
       (3) a local law enforcement officer's right to be protected 
     from physical harassment targeting a local law enforcement 
     officer;
       (4) a local law enforcement officer's right to equipment 
     necessary for personal protection;
       (5) a local law enforcement officer's right to counsel or a 
     representative present at any interview conducted as part of 
     an investigation;
       (6) a local law enforcement officer's right to be informed 
     of the nature of the investigation before any interview 
     commences, including the name of the complainant and 
     sufficient information to reasonably apprise the officer of 
     the allegations;
       (7) during questioning in the course of an investigation a 
     local law enforcement officer's right--
          (A) to not be subjected to any offensive language;
          (B) to not be threatened with departmental, civil, or 
     criminal charges; and
          (C) to not receive financial or promotional inducement;
       (8) a local law enforcement officer's right to a hearing, 
     with notification in advance of the date, access to 
     transcripts, other relevant documents, and evidence;
       (9) a local law enforcement officer's right to have the 
     opportunity to respond to adverse accusations; and
       (10) a local law enforcement officer's right to not be 
     disciplined for exercising a Fifth Amendment right to remain 
     silent unless granted immunity that such statements will not 
     be used against the officer in any criminal proceeding;
       Whereas in order to ensure these investigations are 
     conducted in a manner that protects the public, respects the 
     rights of local law enforcement personnel, and is conducive 
     to good order and discipline;
       Whereas States across the country are encouraged to adopt a 
     ``Bill of Rights'' for local law enforcement personnel for 
     protections related to investigation and prosecution arising 
     from conduct during official performance of duties;
       Whereas the local law enforcement community protects our 
     streets, acknowledges the rights of all Americans, and keeps 
     citizens safe from harm;
       Whereas local law enforcement officers are recognized for 
     their public service to all, knowing they face extremely 
     dangerous situations while carrying out their duties;
       Whereas a healthy and collaborative relationship between 
     local law enforcement officers and the communities they serve 
     is essential to creating mutually respectful dialogue;

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 398, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
amendment.
  During police week, across this Nation, we have taken an opportunity 
to remember and to reflect upon men and women who have paid and made 
the ultimate sacrifice while protecting their community.
  Throughout this week, I shared it with colleagues, not only 
colleagues from the House of Representatives, but colleagues from law 
enforcement agencies throughout this Nation. We shared time at the Law 
Enforcement Officers Memorial. One of the most striking parts of that 
beautiful memorial is an inscription under a lion that says: ``It is 
not how these individuals died that made them heroes it is how they 
lived.'' This amendment recognizes the bravery and the courage of those 
men and women who are living in law enforcement.
  As a retired NYPD detective, I understand the bravery and courage it 
takes to be a law enforcement officer. I have seen the dangers 
firsthand and know the struggles officers must overcome every day they 
suit up, put their bulletproof vest on, pin their shield to their 
chest, and head out to stand the line between good and evil.
  It is critical for local law enforcement officers to have rights and 
protections as they work to keep our communities safe, such as the 
right to self-defense against physical threats, the right to be 
protected from physical harassment targeting law enforcement, the right 
to equipment necessary for personal protection and legal recourse if a 
civilian attempts to assault them.
  My amendment works to ensure law enforcement officials have fair 
administration of justice during investigations and encourages States 
to adopt their own bill of rights to support the brave men and women of 
law enforcement.
  As members of our law enforcement community put their lives on the 
line to protect our communities each and every day, I encourage all of 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to show them unwavering 
support and vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
oppose the D'Esposito amendment as its central focus is advocacy for 
the law enforcement officers' bill of rights, a controversial measure 
pushed by police unions and adopted by many States in response to 
demands for greater accountability and transparency following many 
high-profile incidents of police abuse and misconduct. While seemingly 
benign, the impact of a bill of rights for law enforcement officers can 
be profound.
  For decades, this type of legislation has been one of the greatest 
obstacles to police accountability, hindering investigations, and 
shielding misconduct from public scrutiny, a likely explanation for why 
less than half of all States have adopted one. In Maryland, the first 
State to adopt and the first State to repeal an officers' bill of 
rights, the statute was often cited as the reason for Baltimore's long 
history of police misconduct.
  In many instances, the statutes offer protections and procedural 
privileges to law enforcement officers facing accusations of wrongdoing 
or disciplinary action far beyond those afforded to other government 
employees or to the average civilian accused of criminal behavior.
  For instance, some States provide officers involved in an incident a 
cooling-off period of 24 hours or so before they must cooperate with 
internal investigators. During this cooling-off period, an officer and 
his or her attorney may have access to evidence collected during the 
investigation before the officer is interviewed.
  Through these statutes, officers are shielded from the very interview 
tactics that they use on civilians, such as lengthy interrogations or 
the use of aggressive or threatening questioning, or promises of 
rewards to induce cooperation, both of which this amendment suggests 
should be avoided to ensure the fair administration of justice when 
investigating officer misconduct and only officer misconduct.
  These laws can allow officers accused of wrongdoing to remain on duty 
for prolonged periods of time while investigations are conducted, as 
well as limit the types of disciplinary actions that can be taken 
against officers accused of wrongdoing. They also often limit the 
authority of civilian review boards and make it difficult for the 
public to access information about officers' misconduct in disciplinary 
proceedings and, ultimately, for civilians to hold officers accountable 
for their actions.
  These concerns have led to calls across the country to repeal or 
reform existing law enforcement officers' bills of rights to ensure 
more transparency, accountability, and fairness in the disciplinary 
process. When mayors and police chiefs have attempted to reform their 
troubled police departments, it has been their States' officers' bills 
of rights that have stood in the way.
  While this amendment might be well intentioned, it encourages States 
to adopt a bill of rights for local law enforcement personnel without 
offering any guidance so that we might not further perpetuate the 
already problematic nature of these measures which I have just 
outlined.
  Lastly, I note that just as the text of H. Con. Res. 40 celebrates 
local law enforcement while ignoring thousands of Federal, State, and 
Tribal law enforcement officers, so, too, does this amendment. It is 
for these reasons that I must oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Nadler, the correct pronunciation of my last name 
is D'Esposito. Thank you.
  The reason why this amendment is on the floor is because members of 
the party on the opposite side of the aisle have made it a popular 
decision to target law enforcement, to make their jobs more difficult, 
to legitimately take the handcuffs that are on their gun belt and use 
them on the cop so

[[Page H2440]]

they can't do their job. That is why this amendment is important.

  It is important to honor law enforcement. It is important to 
recognize law enforcement. This is very simple. It is a bill of rights. 
It is giving them the ability to do the job that they took an oath to 
do. They rose their right hand, they swore on a Bible to protect, to 
serve, to go out each and every day and stand that line that I 
mentioned between good and evil.
  The fact that any Member of this House of Representatives who claims 
to support law enforcement, who likes to put those tweets of thoughts 
and prayers, God forbid, when a member of law enforcement loses their 
life. Thoughts and prayers when an officer gets killed is not enough. 
What we need to do is supply them with a bill of rights. What we need 
to do is to implore States to do the same.
  That is why I am asking all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to do the right thing. Today is about supporting law enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, if I mispronounced Mr. 
D'Esposito's name, I apologize. I thought I said it correctly.
  Secondly, I outlined in my remarks the problems with existing State 
bills of rights for police officers. Some States have repealed them. 
They have gotten in the way of investigations. They have gotten in the 
way of investigations of police brutality and misconduct and generally 
have aggravated all the reasons, all the problems that I spoke about in 
my opposition to the main bill.
  For that reason, I reiterate my opposition to this amendment, and I 
urge all my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1015

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered on the concurrent resolution, on the preamble, and on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. D'Esposito).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the concurrent resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 268, 
nays 156, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 226]

                               YEAS--268

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Allred
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bost
     Boyle (PA)
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budzinski
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson
     Davis (NC)
     De La Cruz
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Golden (ME)
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harder (CA)
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hayes
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Horsford
     Houchin
     Houlahan
     Hoyle (OR)
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (NC)
     Jackson (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     James
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kaptur
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kildee
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Landsman
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lee (NV)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Levin
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Magaziner
     Mann
     Manning
     Massie
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Nickel
     Norcross
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pence
     Perez
     Pettersen
     Pfluger
     Phillips
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rouzer
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Salazar
     Salinas
     Santos
     Scalise
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Self
     Sessions
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Sorensen
     Spanberger
     Spartz
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Strong
     Swalwell
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Titus
     Torres (CA)
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wild
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NAYS--156

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Boebert
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Brown
     Brownley
     Buck
     Burchett
     Bush
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Crane
     Crockett
     Crow
     Davis (IL)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gaetz
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Good (VA)
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perry
     Peters
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Rosendale
     Ross
     Roy
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Stansbury
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (MS)
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Auchincloss
     Bishop (NC)
     DesJarlais
     Garamendi
     Green (TN)
     Malliotakis
     McHenry
     Peltola
     Pingree
     Schiff

                              {time}  1043

  Mrs. CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, Mr. HOYER, Ms. MATSUI, and Mr. 
RUPPERSBERGER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mses. KAPTUR, WILD, HOULAHAN, TITUS, Messrs. ALLRED, HIGGINS of New 
York, and MOULTON changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the adoption of the 
concurrent resolution, as amended.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On May 18, 2023, on page H2440, in the third column, the 
following appeared: The result of the vote was announced as above 
recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The 
SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the adoption of the con-
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: The result of the 
vote was announced as above recorded. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
question is on the adoption of the con-


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 301, 
noes 119, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 11, as follows:

[[Page H2441]]

  


                             [Roll No. 227]

                               AYES--301

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Allred
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bera
     Bergman
     Bice
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budzinski
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Castor (FL)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (NC)
     De La Cruz
     DeLauro
     Deluzio
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Flood
     Foxx
     Frankel, Lois
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Golden (ME)
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harder (CA)
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hayes
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinson
     Horsford
     Houchin
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (NC)
     Jackson (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     James
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kaptur
     Kean (NJ)
     Keating
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kildee
     Kiley
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Landsman
     Langworthy
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Levin
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Lynch
     Mace
     Magaziner
     Mann
     Manning
     Massie
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Nickel
     Norcross
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pence
     Perez
     Perry
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Pfluger
     Phillips
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Salazar
     Salinas
     Santos
     Scalise
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spartz
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Strickland
     Strong
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Titus
     Torres (CA)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wild
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NOES--119

     Aguilar
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Brown
     Brownley
     Buck
     Bush
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Casar
     Casten
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Crockett
     Crow
     Davis (IL)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frost
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Gomez
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kim (NJ)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (PA)
     Lieu
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ross
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Smith (WA)
     Stansbury
     Stevens
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (MS)
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (NY)
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

     Dingell
     Goldman (NY)
     Lofgren

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Auchincloss
     Boyle (PA)
     Davidson
     DesJarlais
     Green (TN)
     Malliotakis
     McHenry
     Peltola
     Pingree
     Schakowsky
     Schiff

                              {time}  1053

  Mr. COHEN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On May 18, 2023, on Page H2441, in the second column, the 
following appeared: Mr. LARSON of Connecticut changed his vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the resolution was agreed to.The result 
of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. LARSON of 
Connecticut changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.'' So the 
concurrent resolution was agreed to.The result of the vote was 
announced as above recorded.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``no'' on rollcall No. 227.

                          ____________________