[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.
____________________