[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 111 (Friday, June 27, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H3016-H3023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONDEMNING THE VIOLENT JUNE 2025 RIOTS IN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
530, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 516) condemning the violent June
2025 riots in Los Angeles, California, and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the
resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 516
Whereas, on June 6, 2025, protests began in response to
lawful Federal immigration enforcement actions by the United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel in Los
Angeles, California;
Whereas these protests quickly escalated into violent riots
across Los Angeles, where acts of arson, widespread looting,
property destruction, and vandalism were committed, blocking
streets and highways, lighting streets on fire, throwing
rocks at law enforcement vehicles, and assaulting Federal and
local peace officers;
Whereas rioters have shot commercial grade fireworks and
thrown Molotov cocktails at Los Angeles Police Department
officers and assaulted Federal agents;
Whereas rioters burned American flags, an act that
disrespects the nation that protects their freedom;
Whereas California Governor Gavin Newsom asserted that
``local law enforcement didn't need any help,'' despite the
Los Angeles Police Department declaring that the violence had
worsened and spiraled out of control;
Whereas more than 561 rioters have been arrested, and 12
brave officers with the Los Angeles Police Department have
been injured in efforts to contain the chaos;
[[Page H3017]]
Whereas local and State leadership failed to contain the
rapidly escalating disorder, failing to support overwhelmed
law enforcement personnel;
Whereas the actions of law enforcement have been crucial in
preventing further violence and protecting law-abiding
citizens from harm;
Whereas the U.S. Small Business Administration called on
California Governor Gavin Newsom to request an SBA Economic
Injury Disaster Loan Declaration to authorize SBA to deliver
urgent assistance to Los Angeles-based small businesses that
have been looted by rioters;
Whereas the Los Angeles Ambulatory Care Center, which
provides health services for veterans, was closed for several
days due to civil unrest, resulting in the cancellation of
over 700 in-person appointments for United States veterans;
Whereas the Department of Housing and Urban Development's
Los Angeles field office was temporarily closed due to the
violence caused by anti-ICE riots and protests;
Whereas some mainstream media outlets and Members of
Congress have falsely labeled the protests as ``peaceful''
and with ``no violence'' happening in Los Angeles;
Whereas United States Immigration and Enforcement officers
have faced a 413% increase in assaults against them, and
their family members have been doxed and targeted;
Whereas United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
officers have arrested at least 330 illegal aliens with prior
criminal convictions such as murder, drug trafficking,
assault, cruelty to children, domestic violence, robbery, and
human smuggling;
Whereas illegal aliens have perpetrated violence against
law enforcement officers; and
Whereas California's leadership has prioritized protecting
illegal immigrants and violent individuals over United States
citizens: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the right to assemble and protest
peacefully;
(2) condemns unequivocally the violence perpetrated against
Federal, State, and local law enforcement;
(3) calls on local and State elected leadership to work
with the Federal Government to end the violent riots and
restore peace; and
(4) expresses gratitude to law enforcement officers,
including the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department, California Highway Patrol,
Orange County Sheriff's Department, and other local, State,
and Federal law enforcement agencies, including the United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement for keeping our
communities safe in the face of danger.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 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.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
{time} 0915
General Leave
Mr. KILEY of California. 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. Res. 516.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a couple weeks ago, the entire world witnessed
horrifying scenes out of Los Angeles: Molotov cocktails and bricks
being thrown at officers, Waymo cars being lit on fire, American flags
being burned, and roadways being blocked.
Today, we will stand as a House to condemn these acts of violence and
to condemn the irresponsible politicians who refused to adequately
address them.
I think it is important to understand from the beginning the events
leading to these horrific scenes.
We should first recognize that ICE was undertaking operations in Los
Angeles that have been very standard across administrations, Democrat
or Republican.
President Obama, after all, carried out millions of deportations, and
the priority has always been to focus on those who have a criminal
record and who pose a risk to the public. That is precisely what ICE
was doing in Los Angeles. Among those targeted were murderers,
pedophiles, and drug traffickers.
It should also be recognized that one of the reasons that some of
these people had to be sought out in the community is that the city of
Los Angeles and the State of California have chosen to enact sanctuary
policies that explicitly forbid ICE from taking custody of these
dangerous individuals in the safest and least disruptive setting, in a
custodial setting, that is, in jails. That is the explicit purpose of
our sanctuary laws.
Despite these facts, as these operations were being carried out in a
standard and targeted way in Los Angeles, you had certain politicians
who engaged in inflammatory rhetoric, who then had individuals gather
to disrupt the activities of ICE and our Federal officers, and then you
saw these extreme and horrifying acts of violence.
I will be very clear: I will defend in any way that I can the right
to assemble and protest regardless of the content of what the
protesters are advocating. This is foundational. It is fundamental to
the American system of government, but violence is another matter
entirely.
This is not just a matter of protests crossing a line. Violence is
the antithesis of protests. It seeks to shut down the process of
deliberation, argument, and debate. It seeks to exalt force over
reason. It is an abandonment of the American experiment of self-
government.
By the way, this is especially true when the very purpose of the
violence is to impede the policies of a duly elected President from
being carried out. It is to say that a violent agitator should be able
to overthrow through force the will of a democratic majority that has
been established through a democratic, free, and fair election.
That is what we bore witness to in Los Angeles. Yet, instead of doing
everything possible to restore order, to protect the citizens of Los
Angeles, to protect our law enforcement officers, and our Federal
officers, you saw certain irresponsible vainglorious politicians in
California decide that this was their star-making moment, where they
would egg on the violent agitators, where they would try to pick a
fight in every way they could with the President, even going so far as
to file a frivolous lawsuit that was thrown out unanimously by the
Ninth Circuit.
Worst of all, these politicians decided to place the blame for the
violence on our incredible National Guard members, somehow saying it
was their presence there that caused it. This is deeply offensive, and
our National Guard members are owed an apology.
Today, I hope we can stand together, Republicans and Democrats, in
making it very clear that protests and assembly are fundamental rights
in this country and that acts of violence are a grave threat to those
rights.
Specifically, this resolution recognizes the right to assemble and
protest peacefully, condemns unequivocally the violence perpetrated
against Federal, State, and local law enforcement, calls on local and
State-elected leadership to work with the Federal Government to end the
violent riots and restore peace, and expresses gratitude to law
enforcement officers, including the Los Angeles Police Department, Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department, California Highway Patrol, Orange
County Sheriff's Department, and other local, State, and Federal law
enforcement agencies, including the United States Immigration and
Customs Enforcement for keeping our communities safe in the face of
danger.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the chair of the California
Democratic Delegation who leads the 45 Democrats in the California
delegation.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Kim resolution.
Now, had it just condemned violence and thanked the National Guard
and the Marines, who did not ask for this assignment, I think we would
all be on board.
Instead, the resolution really is engaging in partisan games with
misleading and inflammatory provisions.
Trump said he was going to go arrest and deport violent criminals.
People are okay with that. Instead, armed, masked ICE agents, some
refusing to identify themselves, aggressively, and
[[Page H3018]]
in some cases even violently, took down day workers at Home Depot,
busboys, gardeners, and a union leader, and regular people in Los
Angeles objected to that. Then, as the First Amendment provides, they
peacefully protested against it.
Unfortunately, there were some hooligans and rowdies who infiltrated
that group, and they committed violent acts and vandalism. For that,
they should be prosecuted. They should be brought to justice and
condemned, which we do.
However, the resolution really creates a misleading picture of what
happened. On the first page, it says: ``Whereas these protests quickly
escalated into violent riots across Los Angeles, where acts of arson,
widespread looting, property destruction . . . lighting streets on
fire. . . . '' The fact is that these demonstrations were largely
confined to about a 10-block area in downtown Los Angeles.
The police, LAPD, had the situation under control. There is an
elaborate system of mutual aid in California, and had they needed
additional forces, it was readily available under mutual aid.
I will point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in
case they need a reminder, L.A. County is 4,060 square miles, not the
10 blocks. When President Trump deployed the Marines and National Guard
in L.A., it was not at the request of local officials, the chief of
police, or the Governor. It was unprecedented, unnecessary, and a clear
attempt to take over the State's law enforcement authority. In fact, I
think it did aggravate tensions in the area.
Now, the National Guard remains in Los Angeles to this day. They have
nothing to do. We heard a report from a former commander that less than
20 percent are doing anything and they have been taken away from jobs
where they were needed; for example, helping in efforts of forest fire
prevention and the like.
As the elected chair of the California Democrat delegation, I was
proud to join my colleague (Ms. Barragan) in introducing a resolution
that, unlike this one, is based in fact.
Our resolution condemns the President's authoritarian response to
First Amendment expressions of dissent, unlike the Kim resolution. It
expresses support for law enforcement and for the National Guard and
for the Marines, and it condemns violence by those who committed it.
Now, why is this important? In the resolution, it is so partisan. It
says: ``Whereas California's leadership has prioritized protecting
illegal immigrants and violent individuals over United States
citizens.''
That is absurd. That is insulting to our elected officials, but it is
right in keeping with what the President has said. He has indicated
publicly that he intends to target cities and States that are
democratically elected, that have Democrats elected in government.
What a strange thing to say.
The executive order that nationalized the California National Guard
applies to anywhere in the United States. It is not just L.A. It is not
just California.
I think this resolution really, as false as it is, is serving as a
predicate, as a foundation for the military to be used in places all
over the United States on any pretext, so that the military can go in
and assume civilian authority away from those who are democratically
elected.
That is why it is important that we do not approve this resolution
with its false whereases, and that we do not participate in a scheme to
replace the democratically elected officials in cities and counties and
States across the United States.
I will just end with this: Who should we be more concerned about?
What should we be more afraid of: the gardeners that are being arrested
by ICE, the busboys, the farmworkers, or the concept that the
administration may be taking the steps to replace, with the military,
civil authority that has been duly elected around the United States?
Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let's make sure that we are dealing with the facts as
they actually occurred. The assertion the LAPD had the situation under
control; we all saw otherwise on our television sets. The LAPD chief
himself said that every person in Los Angeles should be disgusted by
what occurred.
The Governor has, himself, in the past, recognized the virtue of
using the National Guard when you had situations that required
reinforcement.
This notion that somehow the President was taking over the State's
law enforcement authority, the Ninth Circuit said otherwise
unanimously. Even a Biden-appointed judge said: The President was
exercising his authority to prevent the disruption of the enforcement
of Federal law.
As to this notion that the violence was largely confined to downtown
L.A., I can't agree with the assertion that it is somehow less
objectionable to have violence occur within a concentrated area than on
a more diffused basis.
Finally, this disparagement of our ICE officers for wearing masks. I
think that this is outrageous. We have seen threats against our ICE
officers absolutely skyrocket. It is very ironic for folks that had no
problem forcing 2 year olds to wear masks all day, in defiance of even
the World Health Organization's guidelines, that are now somehow
objecting to Federal officers who feel the need to do this in order to
protect themselves and their family.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Kim).
Mrs. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Kiley for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 516 to condemn the
violent riots in Los Angeles this month, and I thank our brave law
enforcement officers for keeping us safe.
I appreciate the heated debate and the conversation. I thank my
colleague (Mr. Kiley) for leading on the groundwork and for explaining
what led to the events that occurred last month in Los Angeles, which
explains that Federal agents were conducting immigration enforcement,
according to the law.
Mr. Speaker, protecting public safety should not be controversial.
This resolution is very simple. It recognizes a right to assemble and
protest peacefully, and it condemns unequivocally the violence
perpetrated against Federal, State, and local law enforcement. It calls
on local and State-elected leadership to work with the Federal
Government and restore peace. It also expresses gratitude to our local,
State, and Federal law enforcement officers for bravely keeping our
communities safe in the face of danger.
{time} 0930
That is what this is about. Do you stand with our law enforcement
officers working to keep our communities safe and have the common sense
to call out rioters who commit vandalism, violence, property damage,
and other crimes in our streets?
Mr. Speaker, like others in the Chamber and many across this country,
I am an immigrant who came here legally in pursuit of the opportunities
that this country provides. I am proud to be an American, and I am
paying it forward to keep the American Dream alive for my children and
grandchildren.
Peaceful protests are a constitutional right we all cherish, and our
communities should not be living in fear. But peaceful protests and
freedom of assembly gave way to chaos in Los Angeles, as we witnessed a
few weeks ago.
We saw acts of arson, looting, property destruction, vandalism,
blocking streets and highways, lighting cars on fire, shooting
fireworks, throwing rocks at law enforcement vehicles, and even
assaulting Federal and local police officers. As a result, we saw more
than 500 rioters were arrested, and at least a dozen LAPD officers were
injured.
Local and State leadership clearly could not contain the chaos. The
riots have cost at least $30 million to pay overtime and repair
property damages to city buildings. This doesn't include the small
businesses and other private entities whose businesses fell victim to
the destruction.
We also know that the riots were enabled by California's soft-on-
crime policies that have allowed for lawlessness and endangered public
safety.
Again, this resolution recognizes the right to assemble and protest
peacefully, condemns the violence against law enforcement, and calls on
local and State officials to work with the Federal Government to
restore peace. We thank our law enforcement. This is not controversial.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Correa).
[[Page H3019]]
Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, I ask, what happened? My hometown, Santa
Ana, California, is predominantly Hispanic Latino. Factory workers live
there. Remember, we are the biggest manufacturing State in the Union.
Nearshoring, guess where it is happening?
California is the largest ag State in the Union. There are a lot of
farmworkers in my district. What happened? One day, we are going about
our business in Santa Ana, Orange County, masked Federal agents start
going into our neighborhoods, picking up hardworking neighbors. Oh,
yeah, you bet, people were concerned, scared, and nervous.
A lot of people expressed their First Amendment rights. We got the
National Guard. Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes did not call for the
National Guard. Local police chiefs did not call for the National
Guard. We get the National Guard.
President Trump promised to deport criminals, those with deportation
orders, those here less than 2 years, but now it is hard workers,
people who pay taxes that are being picked up. Mr. Speaker, 60 percent
of those being picked up are now people without criminal records.
Orange County didn't have any violence. We had masked officers coming
into our neighborhoods.
I bet President Trump would want to know what is going on on Main
Street. One of the constituents that just got picked up I talked about
a minute ago, Narciso Barranco. He has been in the U.S. for 25 years.
He is a gardener and a father of three marines. We make movies of
people like this. This gentleman is a hero. His family are heroes.
Instead, he is in an ICE holding facility in Los Angeles.
I am hearing more stories coming, more Barranco-type families being
broken up, military families being separated from their loved ones by
ICE. I do not believe President Trump would want his legacy to be that
he deported military family members like Mr. Barranco.
Let's use common sense here. This resolution is not prime time for a
vote. There are a lot of inaccuracies. I am going to ask my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on this measure.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am moved by the comments of the distinguished
gentleman from California, and I wonder what our colleagues think the
value is other than of a purely political nature to a resolution that
purports to be honoring law enforcement when it is set up on a
completely partisan basis. I wonder what the value of that is.
I especially wonder what the value of that is when the majority
doesn't even stand by actual law when it comes to honoring law
enforcement because this body on March 15, 2022, passed a resolution to
put up a plaque, a simple plaque to honor the noble and brave police
officers who battled for 4 or 5 hours to stop a violent riot and
insurrection unleashed against this Chamber and against the Senate in
an attempt to overthrow a Presidential election.
We voted to erect a plaque in their honor. That was on March 15,
2022. It was supposed to have been put up on March 15, 2023. We are now
more than 2 years overdue in honoring those police officers, 140 of
whom were wounded, injured, disfigured, and many of them permanently
disabled. Several lost their lives in the days to follow that atrocity,
attack on this body.
There is a law which says put up the plaque, and Speaker Johnson and
the majority will not put the plaque up which is why you walk in the
House Office Buildings now, everywhere there are poster replicas of
that plaque being put up.
Now they want to pass a resolution deploring violence that took place
thousands of miles away from here, and it is just a resolution, a
hortatory resolution. They can't even get bipartisan support because of
course they have to set it up on a polemical, partisan basis instead.
What is the utility of that resolution when they won't even follow an
actual law to honor police officers who put themselves between us and a
bloodthirsty mob?
That is not a partisan point because the Republicans denounced it at
that time as terrorism, as an attack on this institution, as
intolerable, as unacceptable.
I am happy to share with my colleague, who I know wasn't in Congress
at the time, all of the statements made by Republican leaders at that
time begging Donald Trump to send in the National Guard, which he
controlled because it is the District of Columbia National Guard, and
he didn't do it. He sat and watched it, eating hamburgers or whatever,
in the White House on TV, ignoring all of the appeals to send the
National Guard to come and defend Republican and Democratic Members of
Congress.
Now we have got a law which says put the plaque up in honor of these
officers, and they can't do it, but they want to bring a totally
partisan resolution to the floor deploring violence thousands of miles
away, and you have got Members of Congress from California saying that
they are not capturing what actually happened there.
However, no, it has got to be another opportunity for partisan
division. Why? Why can't we honor law enforcement together and follow
through on our word?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
As to the comments of my colleague from California, he set forth his
view as to what the priority and the limitations ought to be when it
comes to deportation policy. He is, of course, acting appropriately in
doing so. That is his right, and that is his prerogative as a Member of
Congress, as it is for any citizen.
This resolution does not have anything to do with the merits of his
view. This resolution simply states that one should not use violence in
order to advance that view. I would hope that this should be a
principle we should be able to agree on on a bipartisan basis.
As to my colleague from Maryland's claim that this resolution is
somehow set up in a partisan way, nothing could be further from the
truth. The resolution simply condemns acts of violence. We are opposed
to sanctuary policies. We are opposed to putting a target on the back
of our Federal officers, and, frankly, to defunding the police.
It is not our fault that those who have allowed this violence, who
have promoted sanctuary policies, who have put a target on the back of
our officers, and who have called for defunding the police all happen
to belong to one party.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, many Democrats in this House have called
the L.A. riots peaceful, even while Americans watched with their own
eyes as marauding mobs under foreign flags set cars on fire, threw
concrete blocks at police, terrorized motorists, and vandalized and
looted local shops.
The Democratic vice mayor of Cudahy has called on criminal street
gangs to attack Federal law enforcement.
The Democratic mayor of Los Angeles said that for the riots to stop,
the Federal Government had to stop enforcing Federal immigration law.
You just heard the same sentiment expressed on this floor a few minutes
ago.
The Democratic Newsom administration has paid millions of taxpayer
dollars to one of the principal organizers of these riots.
I have news for the Democrats: The doctrine of nullification died
with the Confederacy. States are not permitted to obstruct the
enforcement of Federal law. In a humiliating slap-down of Mr. Newsom,
even the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the
President has the clear authority to federalize the National Guard to
restore order whenever State or local officials are derelict in their
duty to protect the public and enforce the law.
Remember how all this started: ICE agents attempted to execute court-
ordered warrants on criminal illegal aliens. When a mob intervened, ICE
called for local law enforcement. The mayor reportedly stopped them
from responding, and the Governor did nothing. Now, we saw during the
George Floyd riots what happens when leftist officials refuse to
counter violent mobs: American cities aflame, billions of dollars of
damage, and 19 people killed.
[[Page H3020]]
This resolution condemns the violence, but there is something far
more sinister afoot that strikes at the very foundation of a
constitutional Republic: the rule of law. As Abraham Lincoln told the
Democrats long ago: ``There is no grievance that is a fit object of
redress by mob law,'' and this generation of Americans is taking note.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague invoke Abraham Lincoln
in the rejection of disunion secession and violent attack on the
Federal Government.
Neither of my colleagues who is on the floor has said a word
explaining why they won't put the plaque up to honor hundreds and
hundreds of police officers on the Capitol Police force, the
Metropolitan Police Department, and the Montgomery County Police
throughout the region who came to defend us. Why won't they put the
plaque up if they are really such big supporters of the police? That is
a law.
They just want to pass a resolution. Their resolution, of course, is
completely political. One of their whereas clauses is: ``Whereas,
California's leadership has prioritized protecting illegal immigrants
and violent individuals over U.S. citizens.''
That is just defamation of the law enforcement officials in
California. It is defamation against the Governor of California, the
mayor of Los Angeles, the sheriff in Los Angeles County, the chief of
police in L.A., all of whom fought to put that violence down when riots
broke out, something Donald Trump never did when the riots broke out
that he incited against us.
Remember, he was impeached by this body for inciting a violent
insurrection against us. Not only did he not do anything to defend us,
but he was the one who caused the whole chain of events that led to the
deaths that took place that day and the violence that took place that
day. My colleague won't utter a word about it. He won't say a word
about it.
All of the attempt to focus everybody over there is a distraction
from the fact that they still, to this day, are defending what Donald
Trump did with January 6. Why? It is because they also defend his lie
that he won the 2020 Presidential election, which he lost by more than
7 million votes, 306 to 232 in the electoral college.
{time} 0945
I don't know what the meaning of their totally partisan resolution is
when they won't even stand by the law--it was signed into law by the
President--to put up a plaque, a simple plaque honoring police officers
who fought tooth and nail for hours against the most bloody, vicious,
violent insurrectionist mob ever to attack the Capitol of the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Chu).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this extremely partisan
resolution that seeks to legitimize President Trump's baseless attacks
on Los Angeles and our elected leaders, including Governor Newsom and
Mayor Bass.
This administration's mass ICE raids by masked agents who will not
identify themselves have trampled on our rights and left our community
shaken but not defeated.
The President manufactured a crisis in Los Angeles and then blamed
our constituents for it. He induced ICE to terrorize our community,
detaining hundreds of hardworking residents at places like Home Depot
and car washes, including U.S. citizens like Job Garcia, a doctoral
student in my district at Claremont Graduate University. He was
manhandled, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed.
For this, the President called in the National Guard and Marines?
This resolution only gives credence to Trump's dangerous rhetoric.
Instead, we should be considering the resolution introduced by
California's Democratic delegation, which condemns anyone engaged in
violation of the law, violence, or vandalism. Most importantly, it
stands up for our constitutional rights to due process and free
expression and shows our appreciation to local law enforcement for
upholding public safety.
Rather than feed into the President's cruelty, we are standing up for
the communities we were elected to represent.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her excellent
point. The California delegation has advanced, with Ms. Lofgren, a
truly bipartisan resolution that deplores all violence because the
political violence is getting out of control in America.
We just had colleagues in Minnesota who were the subject of
assassination attempts, and, of course, the former speaker of the
Minnesota House was killed, along with her husband, and a State senator
was wounded, along with his wife.
We deplore all the political violence across the board, and we defend
the right to speak. We look for policies from the Federal Government
that will not exacerbate conflict but will reduce conflict.
This resolution is far from being nonpartisan, as my distinguished
colleague argues. In fact, it attacks the Governor of California,
Members of Congress, California leadership, and the mainstream media. I
mean, come on.
We know the difference between what is a partisan, gotcha resolution
and a resolution that actually attempts to unify people around common
values.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this notion that the President manufactured a crisis is
simply asking us not to believe our eyes. You actually had Members of
Congress from California who said that there was no violence, even
though we all saw on television cars being lit on fire, Molotov
cocktails, and bricks being thrown at officers. Among many other acts
of violence, we had several officers who were injured during the
process.
What did the President do? He asked our dedicated National Guard
members to come in to protect Federal property and Federal officers.
To say that this somehow was what caused the crisis is not only
completely at odds with the facts as we all witnessed them but is
incredibly offensive to our dedicated National Guard members who went
there and have successfully managed to keep the peace.
As to my colleague from Maryland who has now accused us of defamation
with this cause, whereas California's leadership has prioritized
protecting illegal immigrants and violent individuals over United
States citizens, that is simply the very purpose of a sanctuary law, be
it California's sanctuary State law or Los Angeles' sanctuary city law.
The entire purpose of these laws, their explicit effect, is to
provide special protection for those who have not only come into the
country illegally but have committed crimes.
I will give you an example of how sanctuary policies work in
practice. We had a case not far from Sacramento where there was an
individual who was in police custody for assaulting a peace officer. He
had been arrested and was in custody. This is during the Biden
administration, by the way.
ICE saw that he was in custody and asked to take custody of him from
the sheriff's office so that he could be deported. The sheriff's office
had to say, no, sorry, we are not allowed to do that under the
sanctuary State law.
The next week, that man murdered his own three daughters as well as
their chaperone, a horrific crime that never would have happened if not
for California's sanctuary policies.
In a similar vein, many of the operations which ICE conducted in a
targeted and standard way in L.A. would have been unnecessary if it
were not for a sanctuary policy that forbade them from taking custody
of these individuals within a custodial setting.
I would simply ask my colleague from Maryland: Are we to take it from
his remarks that he would support reversing the sanctuary policies that
have caused so much harm in California and Los Angeles?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California talks about defunding the
police. He might want to update his talking points because look who is
defunding the police. President Trump and the
[[Page H3021]]
Republicans are defunding the police, and we know that because we
debated it for hours on this floor.
His DOGE agents, back when Elon Musk was still in town before he got
run out of town by somebody, DOGE said a guy in the Department of
Justice cut out an estimated $500 million in community project funding
to police departments across America, victim rights organizations, and
others receiving those grants. They have not been able to explain it.
They didn't even know it was happening.
Of course, they unleashed DOGE on the Department of Justice and
hundreds of millions of dollars in State and local law enforcement,
victim assistance, rape survivor organization grants, all of that was
cut by them. Of course, they are also cutting more than a billion
dollars in law enforcement funding in the DOJ appropriation this year.
We don't need any lectures about defunding the police from people who
are actively defunding the police and people who are refusing to follow
the law in honoring the police. My friend from California refuses to
utter a word about that.
Could somebody please explain why they are not following the law and
putting a plaque up to honor the officers who came to save our lives on
January 6?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Kamlager-Dove), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in fierce opposition to this
performative and misleading resolution that reads like a cheap script
treatment looking for a second-rate director.
H. Res. 516 is not about public safety. It is about fear,
scapegoating immigrants, and gaslighting the American people into
believing that Los Angeles is some so-called hellscape. If it is such a
hellscape, I want to know why Republican Members of Congress have been
flying into Los Angeles over the past few weeks attending fundraisers.
Nobody is showing up in a hazmat suit or combat gear.
If it is such a hellscape, pull back the cameras and release the
drone footage so we can see what is happening across the entire city.
This resolution ignores the fact that the violence didn't start in a
vacuum. It was sparked by the Trump administration's provocative,
aggressive immigration raids across the State.
ICE agents were in neighborhoods, grocery stores, and churches. I
have never seen a segment on TV about an MS-13 cartel boss in the third
grade. That is what we are seeing.
Of course, we came out and protested. That is what democracy looks
like. Of course, our communities are terrified across Los Angeles,
across the State, and across the country.
Instead of listening to us, the people from L.A., the President
escalated this drama, deploying the National Guard and the Marines to
Los Angeles without a request from local law enforcement, the Governor,
or the mayor.
Why? To launch a pathetic, made-for-TV reality TV show to justify
authoritarian crackdowns and to divert from the real violence, the
violence of cutting $880 billion from Medicaid, the violence of kicking
people off of healthcare, and the violence of tanking our economy into
the gold toilet.
That is what we should be talking about. That is what this President
doesn't want us to talk about, so he turned the cameras and the
manufactured, fabricated violence onto Los Angeles.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California.
Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, this audacity in blaming local
leaders is about optics, power, control, and stoking the ego of
Republicans and king daddy.
We are tanking the California economy, the fourth-largest economy in
the world and the largest donor State. I refuse to support this
resolution.
Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is an odd notion that we have heard repeatedly,
that the violence was only concentrated in part of L.A. and that we
need to zoom out and look at the city as a whole.
For the folks who had to deal with this chaos in downtown L.A., it is
little comfort to them that things might have been more serene in
Beverly Hills.
My colleague from California uses the term ``hellscape'' for L.A. I
am not sure I would use that term.
I can say that L.A. has had a lot of problems, so much so that the
sheriff's department even had to come out and tell folks not to wear
their jewelry when they go outside, to just put it on after they get to
their destination.
As to the assertion that somehow this is a made-for-TV spectacle
created by the President, I ask what made for more sensational TV
images, the Waymos being set on fire and the Molotov cocktails being
thrown at officers, which is to say that the things that happened
before the National Guard got there, or our dedicated National Guard
members standing outside Federal buildings, making sure that no further
damage to property and life occurred?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California has engaged in a spirited
defense of the immigration policies of the administration. I wonder if
he would clarify for us what the policy is this week, or at least
today, with respect to agriculture in California or any other State.
President Trump heard from the Secretary of Agriculture and large
agrarian interests saying that his immigration policies were destroying
agriculture in America by getting rid of tens of thousands or hundreds
of thousands of people who work there and that they are disrupting the
entire agricultural economy.
Then, Donald Trump announced that there were some very fine, good
workers within the agriculture sector, and they would not be enforcing
the law there. That lasted for several days, and then there was a
reversal. They went back to saying, yes, we will be doing ICE
immigration crackdowns again.
Then, Donald Trump heard again from the Agriculture Secretary, as I
understand it, and other interests, and he said no, they would be
leaving some of these people alone.
I wonder if the gentleman could clarify that for us, and I wonder
whether it causes him to second-guess in any way his absolute support
for these policies. Maybe it suggests that there is something wrong
with what they are doing and that the administration could go back to
the drawing board.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Barragan).
Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this partisan and
misleading resolution under consideration.
We have heard our colleague distort the facts already through this
debate. I want to remind the American people and everybody that it was
local law enforcement that got the situation under control before the
National Guard and the Marines showed up. I know because I was on the
phone with the sheriffs and local law enforcement who said, no, they
don't need anybody, that the situation was under control.
This resolution distorts the facts of what happened in Los Angeles.
It falsely paints a picture of widespread chaos across Los Angeles to
justify and legitimize Donald Trump's dangerous decision to deploy the
National Guard and U.S. Marines on American soil, all without the
consent of California's Governor or a request from local leaders and
law enforcement.
That is why I worked with Representative Zoe Lofgren to introduce a
resolution that condemns violence, supports peaceful protests, and sets
the facts straight.
Angelenos have exercised their First Amendment right to peacefully
protest Federal ICE raids that have terrorized our communities.
Unfortunately, there have been a small handful of troublemakers who
have taken to the streets to cause destruction and physical
confrontation.
{time} 1000
Mr. Speaker, they should be arrested and prosecuted, something that
the Governor, the mayor, and L.A.'s congressional delegation have
called for from the start.
Let's remember, though, how we got here. What we have seen on our
streets
[[Page H3022]]
is chilling. There are masked men in unmarked cars. They have no
identification or badge. They are drawing weapons. They are swarming
businesses and parks to indiscriminately stop, arrest, or detain
immigrants and U.S. citizens.
People are being stopped and detained because of the color of their
skin. These are not violent criminals. The majority of the people have
no criminal record.
They are taking the parents, and they are leaving the kids stranded.
They have set off flash-bang grenades in crowds. ICE even arrested U.S.
citizens based on how they looked.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from California.
Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, it is this conduct that is causing people
to go out in the streets and peacefully protest.
President Trump's deployment of troops only escalated tensions and
caused further unrest. Democrats have been clear. Anyone who commits
violence must be held accountable. We must recognize that peaceful
protests are patriotic. Deploying troops to silence dissent is not.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution ignores those facts to score political
points, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the assertion has been made repeatedly that the
President's deployment of the Guard escalated tensions. We have seen
zero evidence for that. We all saw the images of the horrifying
violence that occurred before the Guard came in.
For my colleagues who continue to assert that there was something
untoward about the President deploying the Guard, I would also remind
them that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled otherwise.
In a unanimous decision, the court analyzed the relevant statute
which provides that the President has the authority to make use of the
Guard in order to stop the execution of Federal law from being
disrupted.
The judges looked at the facts on the ground and said when Molotov
cocktails are thrown at officers, when a commercial dumpster is used as
a battering ram in order to break into a Federal office building's
parking lot, when roadways are shut down, this looks a lot like there
is a disruption of the ability to carry out Federal law.
Again, it is not me saying this. This is a unanimous panel of Trump-
appointed and Biden-appointed judges who came to that determination.
I will happily answer the question of my friend from Maryland (Mr.
Raskin) about what is the question when it comes to agriculture. Here
is what the law says. The law says that coming into this country
without authorization is categorically illegal.
Then it is within the discretion of the executive branch how to
prioritize deportations. Across party lines, there has always been a
strong focus on prioritizing those with criminal records. Beyond that,
different Presidents have chosen to exercise that discretion in
different ways.
For example, President Obama chose to deport millions of people
during his time in office. It is ultimately a matter of how the
President chooses to carry out that policy.
Here is the important point for purposes of today's debate. Whatever
a person's views are on that matter, whether they favor deporting
everyone in the country illegally or whether they favor deporting no
one in the country illegally, we should not, cannot, and absolutely
must not use violence in order to advance that point of view.
That is the principle at stake in today's debate. To vote against
this resolution is to countenance what happened with the horrifying
events we saw in my State.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are getting somewhere in this debate. The
gentleman concedes that it is within the discretion of the
administration to decide where to target resources.
I was just trying to find out where the administration is this week
because we are getting conflicting accounts of whether or not they are
still targeting farmworkers. We are getting reports from California,
Texas, and New Mexico that entire farms are shut down because there
have been ICE raids. The other workers are afraid to come to work.
They are begging the President to do something. The President then
said we would stop doing that. Then they reversed it when Stephen
Miller got involved. I think now the agriculture interests are getting
involved. They should get the policy together.
It speaks to an underlying problem here, which is that the
overwhelming number of arrests now are not of people who are criminal
suspects for anything. Mr. Speaker, 65 percent of the people who have
been taken by ICE since this administration began had no criminal
convictions at all.
That is why we read articles in The Wall Street Journal about small,
rural towns that voted for Donald Trump. They are up in arms and are in
an uproar because people who have done nothing wrong and are pillars of
the community are being taken away from their workplaces, their farms,
their restaurants, their businesses, and their homes.
I ask the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), who I
know to be a serious student of the law because he was a student of
mine of the law when we were at Yale Law School together: What
authorizes the government to send people out who are not identified
with any law enforcement insignia, who are masked and who are in
unmarked cars, to arrest people? Doesn't that set the people up for
danger in America?
That is what the assassins in Minnesota were doing. They showed up,
dressed like some kind of vague police person without any law
enforcement insignia, and in an unmarked car. That sets us up for
danger.
Doesn't my colleague think the law enforcement norm is for people to
know who police officers are so that they know they have to submit to
their authority? I would inquire if my colleague would like to answer
the question.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, if it is true that law
enforcement is somehow never allowed to be in something other than
their uniform, I think there are a lot of people who have gotten
tickets for running a stop sign, when there was an unmarked car there,
who would be happy to hear that. They now have a new basis to challenge
that.
I think we are all aware that there are circumstances, like when
someone is undercover or when they are doing a stakeout, in which it
doesn't make sense for the official to identify himself as an officer.
Of course, that is neither here nor there because in these very
targeted operations, we have seen that these folks are very clearly
identified. To the extent that some have chosen to not have their faces
revealed, it is because we have seen the threats against ICE absolutely
skyrocket over the last several months.
It is, again, quite ironic when there were folks on that side of the
aisle who were all about masks in the most absurd of settings during
the COVID years. We had people playing singles tennis or out on the
ocean paddleboarding required to wear a mask. There were 2-year-olds
wearing a mask all day when no other country did this.
Yet when Federal officers, undertaking dangerous activity, trying to
do their jobs, yet facing threats, being doxed and feeling like they
and their family are at risk, choose to take this protective measure,
now my colleague has a problem with it?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for
closing.
Mr. Speaker, there are masked agents in unmarked cars sent out,
violating people's due process rights, as the courts have found. This
includes all the way up to the Supreme Court. They are arresting
Members of Congress. They are prosecuting Members of Congress for doing
their jobs. They federalize the State National Guard when the police in
Los Angeles and the elected officials are doing their jobs.
[[Page H3023]]
This is an authoritarian attack on constitutional democracy. We must
get back to the rule of law.
If nothing else, the Republicans should put up the plaque they
committed to put up, honoring the police officers who defended American
democracy, the Vice President of the United States, the House of
Representatives, the Senate, and everybody in this room during the
January 6 violent insurrection which Donald Trump was impeached for
having incited.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1010
Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, what happened in L.A. put on
stark display years of reckless and failed policies, starting with the
millions of people who came across the border illegally during the
Biden years and then the sanctuary policies that California has
enacted, not to mention the countless people who have been released
from prison early thanks to reckless crime policies.
Today's resolution is not about any of that. Today's resolution is
about something much simpler, a notion that I would hope would be
unobjectionable: that in this country we settle our differences through
reasoned arguments and debate and not through force and violence, that
we make political decisions through elections and not through riots.
I hope that this resolution will receive strong bipartisan support on
the floor today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution and the preamble.
The question is on adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The vote was taken by electronic device, and
there were--yeas 215, nays 195, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 185]
YEAS--215
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Boebert
Bost
Bresnahan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Costa
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gillen
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gonzales, Tony
Gooden
Gosar
Gray
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luttrell
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--195
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Beatty
Bilirakis
Brecheen
Buchanan
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Fedorchak
Garamendi
Gimenez
Goldman (NY)
Graves
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (TX)
Kennedy (UT)
Luna
Miller (WV)
Moskowitz
Neal
Perez
Schakowsky
Sherrill
Smith (WA)
{time} 1038
Messrs. LOUDERMILK and COSTA changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I missed a vote today. Had I been present, I
would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 185.
Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Speaker, I was was unavoidably detained due to
illness and was not able to cast my vote on Roll Call No. 185. Had I
been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 185.
Ms. PEREZ. Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately missed the vote today. Had I
been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 185.
Stated against:
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for the vote in the
House chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll
Call No. 185.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed today's
vote. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 185.
____________________