[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 80 (Tuesday, May 13, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H1961-H1965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 30) expressing support for local
law enforcement officers.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 30
Whereas the brave men and women in local law enforcement
work tirelessly to protect the communities they serve;
[[Page H1962]]
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 the
streets, and protect the innocent;
Whereas local law enforcement officers take an oath to
never betray the public trust;
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; and
Whereas local law enforcement officers and their families
deserve respect, appreciation, and support for their
sacrifices and commitment to public service: 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 the Nation's communities safe;
(2) extends its gratitude to all local law enforcement
officers and their families for their sacrifice and service;
(3) honors the memory of those local law enforcement
officers who have fallen in the line of duty; and
(4) encourages continued collaboration between local law
enforcement agencies and the communities they serve to
strengthen public safety and trust.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
General Leave
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 30.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this week, we celebrate National Police Week. In so
doing, we honor those officers who have been killed in the line of
duty, as well as those who bravely serve their communities every single
day.
More than 60 years ago, President John F. Kennedy signed a
proclamation that designated May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and
the week in which that day falls as Police Week.
Thousands of law enforcement officers are visiting Washington, D.C.,
this week to honor their colleagues who have made the ultimate
sacrifice. I extend my sincere gratitude to all local law enforcement
officers and their families for their sacrifice and their service.
These police officers risk their lives every day to protect our
communities, and they do this despite the obstacles and dangers that we
all know that they face. Police officers rush into harm's way out of
duty and devotion to their sacred oath: ``To Protect and Serve.''
The families of law enforcement officers also bear the burden of
service through missed birthdays, school events, and sports games. This
resolution is a small way in which we can show our thanks. I encourage
all Members to take time to pray, show their support for, and say thank
you to our local law enforcement heroes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I thank
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell), who served in law
enforcement as a sheriff, for his work in putting this together and
sponsoring the resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this week, we welcome thousands of law enforcement
personnel to Washington for National Police Week. We remember officers
who lost their lives in service to our communities and our country, and
we thank all officers who work to keep us safe while reflecting on how
we can invest in law enforcement to better serve our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support this resolution because we
strongly support our local law enforcement officers. Yet, we also
strongly support our State, Federal, and Tribal law enforcement
officers, as well. Why are these brave officers not part of this
resolution? This is a strange development.
In the last Congress, the 118th Congress, we passed H. Con. Res. 40
to honor local law enforcement. We also passed H. Res. 363 in 2023 to
recognize the police lives lost that year and the importance of funding
and supporting all law enforcement, Federal, State, county, and local.
These were followed by H. Con. Res. 106 and H. Res. 1213 in 2024, which
did the same.
{time} 1530
This year the majority has chosen to have us solely recognizing local
law enforcement. Why is that? What explains this strange omission of
the Federal police officers who serve us?
With President Trump back in office, the majority apparently now sees
fit to honor only local officers and not the Federal law enforcement
officers who fought so valiantly to protect every Member of this body
and the Senate, our staffs, and our democracy on January 6, 2021.
Apparently, their commitment to backing the blue is so weak that they
now won't even mention Federal officers because they have to maintain
the pretense that Capitol officers did something wrong by defending us
against the violent rampage of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the
Three Percenters, and other extremist marauders who stormed the U.S.
House of Representatives and the Senate.
Is that right or will the majority please prepare a resolution
honoring Federal law enforcement, as well that we can bring to the
floor?
This is one troubling sign among many of an ideological abandonment
of our Federal law enforcement officers and there are more than 137,000
of them, not just the Capitol Police.
Speaker Johnson still refuses to hang a simple plaque honoring those
officers as is required by Federal law. The bill mandating the creation
and placement of the plaque, H.R. 2471, was signed into law on March
15, 2022, and the plaque was supposed to have been erected within 1
year of that, March 15, 2023.
The plaque is finished, it is ready to be placed, and it looks like
this. It reads: ``On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors
the extraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this
symbol of democracy on January 6th, 2021. Their heroism will never be
forgotten.''
Well, it seems it is already being forgotten by the GOP majority or
at least they want us to forget it. Are my friends so captive to
conspiracy theories and revisionist fantasies about January 6 that they
will not do the bare minimum to honor the police officers who fought
tooth and nail to protect every person in this room who was there,
including Members on my side of the aisle and Members on the other side
of the aisle?
The people we are failing to honor by not hanging this plaque include
at least 140 police officers who were beaten with poles, bats, American
flags, Trump flags, Confederate battle flags, and their own shields.
These are people who lost fingertips. They suffered concussions, broken
jaws, and broken ribs. They had heart attacks and strokes. They
sustained multiple other violent injuries and suffer from them, many of
them, to this day, in one of the worst days of injuries for law
enforcement officers in the United States in this century.
This affront is now adding further symbolic insult to the grievous
injury that began at the beginning of this administration. President
Trump granted full pardons to more than 1,500 insurrectionists and
rioters and commuted the sentence of the rightwing extremists who
spearheaded the attack on this Chamber and on the police officers who
defended us.
More than 600 of those defendants whose pardons are full, complete,
and unconditional were charged with assaulting or obstructing law
enforcement officers. Now President Trump, backed by his own Justice
Department, thinks that the violent insurrectionists should be
compensated, not the police officers, but rather the people who
perpetrated this assault on America.
President Trump said: A lot of the people in the government really
like that group of people. He is creating a compensation fund not for
the officers
[[Page H1963]]
and their families who fought and suffered and several died to save our
country but for the domestic terrorists, as leaders of the Republican
Party described them at the time, who tried to destroy it.
That is the decision, to cast his lot with the Proud Boys and other
extremists that he incited on that day.
Many of the officers who served on January 6 feel betrayed by the
officials whose lives they saved that day. Take former U.S. Capitol
Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell who was nearly crushed to death on
January 6.
Sergeant Gonell is an Army veteran from the Iraq war and was
upholding his oath to defend and protect the seat of our Nation's
government. He said he saw violence on that day here at the Capitol far
worse than anything he experienced fighting for America abroad.
Despite the fact that he and many other officers nearly lost their
lives and now face lifelong injuries that have forced him out of the
line of police work, they still cannot get approved for Public Safety
Officers' Benefits, which provide disability benefits to officers
catastrophically injured in the line of duty.
As Sergeant Gonell recently told my staff, Trump is treating the
rioters like they were the ones defending the Capitol. He noted that at
every turn when Republicans could honor the bravery of law enforcement
officers that day, they have instead chosen to do nothing.
Of course, if my colleagues across the aisle want to focus on local
law enforcement, then I might ask why we are simply honoring them with
this concurrent resolution and not taking more meaningful action, like
restoring millions of dollars in Federal grants that help support them
that were recently terminated by the Department of Justice at the
direction of DOGE and Elon Musk.
Those grants supported programs like the rural violent crime
reduction initiative, which delivered financial assistance directly to
dozens of rural law enforcement agencies across America and allowed
agencies to upgrade technology and equipment, hire and deploy
personnel, support victim services and crime prevention programming,
and fill in other gaps in policing for small, rural, underfunded police
agencies.
We should be grateful for all of our officers, Federal, State,
county, and local, who help keep us safe while people are in their
communities and while Members of Congress come to Washington, D.C. We
should be grateful for all of them.
Let's join together to uplift all law enforcement officers whether
they are local or State, Tribal, or Federal, and let's support them
symbolically with our words but more importantly with our actions.
Let's restore all of the funding, the hundreds of millions of dollars
that have been cut or that face cuts by this new administration.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: Republicans honor local law
enforcement, Democrats defund them. Five years ago this summer, they
spent the whole summer doing that. That is all you would hear from
Democrats, got to defund the local police. We have been consistent. We
have condemned violence every single time it happened whether it was
January 6 or the summer of 2020. They haven't.
The summer of 2020, I still remember the guy standing in front of the
burning building on CNN saying, this is a mostly peaceful protest. They
spent the whole summer trying to defund the police, so don't give us
the lecture.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell), the fine gentleman who served in local
law enforcement, who was a sheriff, and who knows what it is like to go
out there and protect his community, for sponsoring this resolution.
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bipartisan
resolution honoring the brave men and women who serve in local law
enforcement.
These officers work tirelessly to protect and serve, putting their
lives on the line every day to uphold the rule of law.
As a former sheriff, a son of a police officer, and a 42-year career
police officer, I have walked in their shoes. I know the toll it takes
on them. I know the long hours, sleepless nights, and time spent away
from family. I know this stuff.
I know what it means to respond to a tragedy, to console a grieving
victim's family after a horrendous crime has happened to them involving
tragic accidents. I have seen things most Americans will thankfully
never have to experience.
When others run away from danger, law enforcement and first
responders run toward it. They fight crime, protect the innocent, and
too often, make the ultimate sacrifice.
During my time in Congress, Mississippi has lost too many heroes: In
June 2023, Madison Police Officer Randy Tyler was shot and killed while
responding to a hostage situation. In January 2024, George County
Sheriff's Deputy Jeremy Malone was shot and killed during a traffic
stop on a rural highway. In August 2024, Summit Police Patrolman Troy
Floyd was shot and killed during a regular, routine traffic checkpoint.
Earlier this year, Hinds County Sheriff's Deputy Martin Shields, Jr.,
was shot and killed after responding to a domestic violence dispute.
These officers represent the best of our State and our Nation. Fallen
heroes like these officers are being honored this week during National
Police Week as thousands of law enforcement officers come to the
Nation's Capital together here in Washington. That is why there is no
better time for us to pass this resolution and make it clear that we
stand for law enforcement.
My resolution expresses our gratitude to local law enforcement and
their families for their service and sacrifice. It calls for stronger
partnerships between officers and the communities they protect, and it
honors the memories of those who never came home.
We have seen targeted, ambush-style attacks on law enforcement
officers. We have seen departments struggle to recruit and retain
talented officers because they were vilified for deciding to serve
their communities.
Mr. Speaker, this is the time for Congress to take the lead. It is
time to make clear that we stand with the men and women of local law
enforcement who protect each and every one of our communities with
honor and courage.
I am proud that this resolution passed last Congress with
overwhelming support. This police week, I urge my colleagues to join me
in voting for this resolution to send a clear message that Congress
backs the thin blue line.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the distinguished chairman of the
Judiciary Committee denounce the assault, the violent assault, on
Congress, the Capitol, our police officers on January 6, 2021. I wonder
if he would work with me to help enforce the law that was signed on
March 15, 2022 by President Biden for a plaque to be placed in honor of
the police officers who served us so valiantly and so bravely and saved
our lives on that day.
It was supposed to have been up by March 15, 2023, and the Speaker
simply has remained noncommittal and indifferent. The plaque is
actually completed. It is ready to be put up. We can show it again. It
is not as big as this poster, but it is the smallest token of
recognition and honor that we should be able to extend to the Capitol
officers, many of whom are still with us on the force, for their
sacrifice and the sacrifice that their families made based on their
work that day defending us.
I wonder if the chairman of the Judiciary Committee would follow
through on his very impressive statement that we all denounce the
violence of any kind against officers, including the more than 140
Capitol officers who were wounded, injured, hospitalized, some of them
permanently disfigured and maimed on that day as well as officers
around the country.
Now, on the point about defunding the police. Look who is defunding
the police: Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and their silent partners in
Congress are defunding the police. They just terminated $500 million
worth of grants, lost funding from the Department of Justice providing
Federal support for local violence reduction by community police,
community policing and prosecution, victim services, juvenile justice,
child protection, substance abuse and mental health treatment,
corrections and reentry, justice systems enhancements, research and
evaluation, and
[[Page H1964]]
other State, county, and local level public police and safety
functions.
I brought this to the attention of the Judiciary Committee because,
again, this was an operation by DOGE. We have got a Federal District
Court opinion from northern California saying that DOGE basically has
no legal status because it wasn't created by Congress. It might be a
completely renegade operation in an attempt to create a fourth branch
of government.
In any event, those of us who voted for the money, and that is people
on both sides of the aisle, voted for the money to be distributed by
the Department of Justice to local grantees didn't even know about
this. I shared with the chairman and with all the members of the
committee, the one name of the DOGE employee, an unelected bureaucrat,
a juvenile bureaucrat from Silicon Valley who worked his way up through
Tesla and so on, and they ended up in DOGE, cut hundreds of millions of
dollars to local police. They defunded the police.
{time} 1545
DOGE defunded the police. Donald Trump defunded the police. I
introduced an amendment to try to restore every single grant that they
cut off in severing that Federal investment in local police.
My colleagues uttered not a word, not a word in opposition to my
amendment, but they all voted against it simply because they are
walking the line with Elon Musk right off the edge of the Constitution
because there is no constitutional grounding for anything that guy is
doing.
They walked the line behind Elon Musk and Donald Trump, and they just
defunded hundreds of millions of dollars from community law enforcement
and public safety, so don't give me that lecture about defunding the
police, which our side has never supported, but their side has just
colluded in right now in terms of what the Department of Justice did.
That doesn't even get into their attempt to dismantle completely the
ATF, shut down critical functions in the Department of Justice that
protect us from foreign involvement in our elections, to take down the
kleptocracy task force and so on. I don't want any lectures coming in
our direction, either.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, you can try to rewrite history, but it just doesn't
work. Let me just read off the Democratic-run cities that did defund
the police.
Here is the game the Democrats want. All during the summer of 2020,
they were saying: Defund the police. Democratic-run cities all over the
country were doing so.
Now they say: Oh, but because crime went up when we defunded the
police, we want Federal taxpayers to send us money to make up for the
cuts we did there and spent the money elsewhere. That was the game.
If you don't believe me, here is the list:
Austin, Texas, $150 million cut;
Boston, Massachusetts, $12 million cut;
Burlington, Vermont, $1.1 million;
Denver, Colorado, $55 million;
Eureka, California, $1.2 million;
Hartford, Connecticut, $2 million;
Kansas City, Kansas, $42 million;
Los Angeles, $150 million;
Madison, Wisconsin, $2 million cut;
Minneapolis, $8 million;
New York City, $1 billion cut that summer;
Norman, Oklahoma, $865,000;
Oklahoma City, $5.5 million;
Philadelphia, $33 million;
Portland, Oregon, $16 million;
Salt Lake City, $5.3 million;
San Francisco, $120 million;
Seattle, Washington, $69 million;
Washington, D.C., $15 million--we know about the crime that has
happened in this city; and of course, in the ranking member's home
State of Maryland, Baltimore cut their police department $22 million.
Now they are saying: Oh, make sure the Federal money keeps coming.
Look, I am not against some of these grant programs. We will look at
all those. However, don't say you didn't defund the police. You did.
Everyone knows you did, and you all talked about it, and you cheered it
on. For the bad guys who harmed the police that summer when you were
encouraging cities to cut the police, you were raising money to bail
them out. Your Presidential candidate was raising money to bail them
out. You can have all the revisionist history you want. The facts are
the facts.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I will start just by asking my friend from
Ohio whether he is referring to me when he uses the word ``you'' or if
he is referring more generally to some other people because I would
categorically deny having done any of those things.
Mr. JORDAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RASKIN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JORDAN. I was referring to that party that you belong to, not you
personally.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Well, the gentleman refers exclusively--and I think he is aware of
this because he is an extremely clever debater--to things that
different local governments did or did not do. I don't know what
Denver, Colorado, or Burlington, Vermont, did. I know what the United
States Congress does, and we never defunded the police, and we never
tried to defund the police.
On the other hand, my good friend, I believe, participated in--and if
he didn't, I am happy to stand corrected, but I know a bunch of his
colleagues said they wanted to defund the FBI, just like those who want
to defund the ATF and shut it down right now, so that is a reality.
In any event, why don't we talk about what Congress can actually do?
The President's new budget proposes to cut--so this is something that
my colleague and I could agree on--$1 billion across 40 Department of
Justice grant programs which support local police departments to reduce
violent crime, hate crime, and crime against women.
Would my colleague work with me to oppose that suggestion in the
President's budget? They want to cut $646 million from FEMA for
violence and terrorism prevention. Why do they want to do that? I have
no idea.
They want to cut $545 million from the FBI, cutting its workforce by
more than 2,000 personnel. That sounds like defunding law enforcement
to me.
I know they don't seem to be as fond of Federal law enforcement as
they are of local law enforcement, but do they really want to cut more
than half a billion dollars from the FBI to be fighting criminals and
terrorists? For the life of me, I don't understand how they can do that
while they swear fealty to law enforcement. It just makes no sense.
They want to cut $491 million from the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency, making our cyber and physical
infrastructure far more vulnerable to attack by foreign bad actors like
Vladimir Putin and President Xi and Kim Jong-un. I know there are some
people in high levels of office who are fond of those people, who write
valentines to Kim Jong-Un, but the rest of us would like to be
protected from them. We shouldn't be dismantling the cybersecurity
infrastructure of America.
They want to cut $212 million from the DEA. Can you imagine? If a
Democratic President had proposed any of this, they would be screaming,
their hair would be on fire, but Donald Trump proposed it, and they
just mumble along like it is no big deal.
What about all of these efforts to defund Federal law enforcement,
like the DOJ, FEMA, FBI? Will our colleagues work with us to restore
that money?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have not said I was for defunding the ATF or the FBI.
What I have said, what the American people have said clearly is they
don't want these agencies weaponized against the very people they are
supposed to serve. We all know about that. Think about this, though,
when you think about the FBI's budget, it is like $12 billion. More
than half of that budget, more than half of the personnel at the FBI
are focused on intelligence and counterintelligence.
I think most Americans probably think the FBI should spend most of
its
[[Page H1965]]
resources on going after traditional crime, organized crime, bad guys,
gang activity. I think that is probably where they think it should be,
but, no, they are spending half their budget, half their personnel on
surveillance of Americans. I think that is a little different.
How about the ATF? We all know the example of the ATF raiding Bryan
Malinowski's home. Bryan Malinowski was the highest paid official in
the Little Rock, Arkansas, municipal government. He ran the Bill and
Hillary Clinton airport. He was a gun hobbyist. The ATF thinks he has
done something wrong. Instead of just going and visiting him, coming to
see him, picking him up at his work, taking him back to his house to
execute the warrant, the search warrant, no, they had to kick in his
door, predawn raid, 10 cars pull up. The first thing you see on the
doorbell cam is them putting tape on the camera. Mr. Speaker, 53
seconds later, Bryan Malinowski has been shot in the head and
subsequently dies.
I am for these agencies actually serving the taxpayers, not being
engaged in things like that. We respect the police and want it done
right. At the local level, God bless them. I have not been for
defunding them. We are for honoring local police, like this good
sheriff, this Member of Congress, and what they do day in and day out.
That is what this resolution was about.
The other side, they want to come here and start talking about all
kinds of things I didn't intend to. You heard my opening statement. You
heard the gentleman's opening statement. However, the other side wants
to go start attacking things.
Okay, fine. We are just setting the record straight. Mr. Speaker, I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Yes, the record is becoming increasingly clear here. My colleagues
don't want to do anything about the dismantling of hundreds of millions
of dollars of funds that we appropriated at the Department of Justice
that have been mysteriously deleted by a DOGE employee from local law
enforcement. These are grants that go to local police departments and
victim assistance agencies all over the country. They got rid of that.
Then the President comes forward with a budget that will cut more
than $1.5 billion, maybe $2 billion from local law enforcement to go
after violent crime, hate crime, to defend the victims of rape and
sexual assault, and my colleague changes the subject once again to talk
about weaponization.
We have never seen weaponization of the government like what we have
seen under Donald Trump and his Department of Justice. The first thing
they did was they got rid of a dozen experienced veteran criminal
prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's office and the Department of Justice
simply because they had worked to prosecute January 6 insurrectionists
and rioters.
Yes, let me repeat that. They fired prosecutors for doing nothing
more than their jobs to prosecute the criminals who beat the daylights
out of our police officers, and they sacked all of those prosecutors.
They were some of the most experienced veteran prosecutors that we have
in the U.S. Attorney's office. Then he named to be the acting U.S.
Attorney Ed Martin. He was just forced to withdraw that nomination
because he was standing by a Neo-Nazi Holocaust revisionist who said
that Hitler's problem was that he didn't finish the job. He also said
that those who are born with disabilities should be killed at birth. Ed
Martin called him a great man and a great leader.
He withdrew the nomination, but still he put Ed Martin in the
Department of Justice in a position that is not subject to Senate
confirmation. They have weaponized the Department of Justice. They have
weaponized the Department of State. They are going after anybody they
describe as a political enemy. Ed Martin was writing letters to Members
of Congress when he didn't like what they had to say.
We have never seen weaponization of the government like what is
taking place right now. They took the U.S. Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer,
and they sacked her because she refused to take the position that Mel
Gibson should get his guns back. That wasn't part of her job, but they
tried to conscript her to it. The pardon attorney refused to do it
because she said that was not her job and there were too many questions
about domestic violence episodes.
If you want to have a separate hearing on weaponization of the
government under Donald Trump, let's do it. In the meantime, let's
support local law enforcement and let's support Federal law
enforcement. Let's have another resolution praising all law enforcement
for what they do, and let's get that plaque up.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, again, I would emphasize what a fine resolution we have
here sponsored by the gentleman from Mississippi, and we do. We all do
appreciate the work of our law enforcement men and women who put that
uniform on every day, risk their lives to protect our families, our
communities, all the things that we care about.
We hope this resolution is a unanimous vote. We hope both sides
support it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Onder). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 30.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________