[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 13, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H3428-H3434]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1275,
I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 96) expressing
support for law enforcement officers, 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 1275, the
concurrent resolution is considered read.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 96
Whereas the brave men and women in law enforcement work
tirelessly and relentlessly to safeguard the communities they
are sworn to protect, serving as the backbone of public
safety across our Nation;
Whereas law enforcement officers bear the critical
responsibility of upholding the rule of law and maintaining
the safety, stability, and public order upon which our
communities depend;
Whereas law enforcement officers routinely and selflessly
risk their own lives and safety to combat crime, remove
dangerous and lethal drugs from our streets, and stand in
defense of the most vulnerable among us;
Whereas law enforcement officers strengthen our communities
through outreach, mentorship, crisis response, and countless
daily acts of service that frequently go unrecognized;
Whereas, from resolving neighborhood disputes to checking
in on elderly residents and guiding youth programs, officers
provide a quiet and steady presence that extends far beyond
traditional law enforcement duties;
Whereas rhetoric and policies from leftist activists and
progressive politicians seek to defund or dismantle local
police departments undermine public safety and place both
officers and the communities they serve at greater risk;
Whereas sanctuary city policies that restrict cooperation
with Federal immigration authorities can compel local law
enforcement agencies to divert already limited resources and
actively encourage resentment toward local law enforcement;
Whereas the Trump administration's focus on restoring law
and order has contributed to a notable decline in homicide
rates, with levels reaching among the lowest recorded in over
a century;
Whereas drug overdose deaths in the United States have
declined significantly, reaching their lowest levels since
2019;
Whereas violent crime rates have declined significantly in
major cities across the United States; and
Whereas law enforcement officers deserve our deepest
respect, unwavering support, and profound gratitude: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress--
(1) appreciates and values the indispensable contributions
that law enforcement provides to our communities and our
country each and every day;
(2) recognizes the extraordinary sacrifice that law
enforcement officers make to protect and serve their
communities and their country; and
(3) expresses its profound and wholehearted support for the
men and women of law enforcement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable
for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
[[Page H3429]]
General Leave
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and insert extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 96.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we owe a great deal of gratitude to the men and women in
law enforcement who make sacrifices every day. They miss dinners,
holidays, parent-teacher conferences, sports games, performances, and
celebrations with their families so that the rest of us can live
safely. These brave officers are the thin blue line that stand between
our communities and chaos.
For years, radical Democrats championed the defund the police
movement, slashed police budgets, and demonized entire police
departments while crimes skyrocketed. Murders, carjackings, and retail
thefts surged. We also saw leftist rogue prosecutors utterly fail to
enforce the laws and uphold their oath of office. They refused to
prosecute entire categories of crime, implemented cashless bail,
released violent offenders back into society, and the list goes on and
on.
We have seen Democrats support sanctuary city policies and openly
side with illegal immigrants over American citizens. Sanctuary
jurisdictions proudly shield criminal aliens from Federal immigration
authorities, regardless of the cost to the residents. Officials from
these jurisdictions tie the hands of their very own police departments.
We have seen time and again how these jurisdictions refuse to honor an
ICE detainer, release a criminal alien back onto the streets, and then
that alien commits another heinous crime. Almost one-third of the
country lives in a sanctuary jurisdiction. That is roughly 100 million
Americans.
Where these failed policies took hold, chaos followed. Thankfully,
the Trump administration has restored law and order. Because of
President Trump, the border is secure.
Because of President Trump, the homicide rate has declined an average
of 21 percent in 35 major U.S. cities, reaching the lowest level
recorded in over a century.
Because of President Trump, we have seen the lowest number of drug
overdoses since 2019.
These historic results prove that when we enforce the law and
prioritize prosecuting violent crime, American communities become safer
for everyone. When law enforcement officers are empowered to do their
jobs, American communities become safer for everyone. When politicians
support the police instead of siding with radical activists, American
communities become safer for everyone.
To every police officer watching today, America sees you. We thank
you. We stand with you.
I urge my colleagues to support our brave men and women in law
enforcement, reject policies that make Americans less safe, and support
this resolution.
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 rise to oppose and to deplore this partisan
resolution. As you just heard, H. Con. Res. 96 is another tiresome and
loathsome exercise in partisan MAGA polemics.
Unlike H. Res. 1252, which was honestly written to honor law
enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, and which received an
overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House just a few hours ago, this
nonbinding rhetorical resolution desecrates the solemnity and abandons
the nonpartisanship of Police Week by scrawling a bunch of false and
inflammatory anti-Democratic and pro-Trump graffiti on what has always
been, until now, a simple nonpartisan resolution expressing the
national consensus supporting law enforcement.
It is not difficult to write these resolutions in a way that garners
widespread bipartisan support. Last year, Congress passed H. Con. Res.
30, a bipartisan resolution expressing our mutual common support for
local law enforcement. The year before that, together we passed H. Res.
1213, condemning calls to defund the police and violence against law
enforcement officers.
We have always strived for bipartisanship in these resolutions on
Police Week to show that the whole community is together. But just as
21 Republicans voted against the Congressional Gold Medal for officers
who defended this Capitol and this Chamber against rioters and
insurrectionists on January 6, 2021, now, the Republicans bring forward
a resolution designed not to unify but to divide.
The resolution before us invites us to endorse a tired, false,
cliche-ridden partisan claim about defunding the police when, in fact,
it is Democrats who have repeatedly promoted robust funding for law
enforcement, while congressional Republicans, the Trump administration,
and Elon Musk have cut funding for law enforcement and public safety
programs that actually work as they slashed $500 million from State and
local crime-fighting and victim assistance grants and programs under
the DOGE and Elon Musk's crusade against the Federal Government.
The resolution also invites us to sign on to the demonstrably false
claim that the Trump administration's focus on restoring law and order
has contributed to a notable decline in homicide rates. The significant
decline in violent crime in major cities over the past couple of years
has nothing to do with the Trump Presidency as the resolution asserts
and everything to do with the Democrats they denounce and the Biden
Presidency's investment in State and local law enforcement.
In fact, homicides skyrocketed during the first Trump administration,
and the historic nationwide decrease in violent crime began during the
Biden administration and was the result of Democratic-led investments
in public safety through both the American Rescue Plan, which House
Republicans unanimously opposed, and the historic Bipartisan Safer
Communities Act.
Thanks to these sweeping investments in public safety and our common
security, cities leveraged Federal funds and innovation to pursue a
variety of effective programs to combat violent crime, with some cities
recording the lowest murder rate since the 1960s, or even before that.
{time} 1700
Madam Speaker, instead of restoring law and order, as the resolution
claims, the current administration has systematically undermined law
enforcement and jeopardized public safety without any objections from
the party that claims to back the blue. The administration canceled
millions in critical grant funding that supported State and local law
enforcement. It reassigned more than 25,000 Federal agents tasked with
fighting organized crime, terrorism, and human trafficking away from
their missions in order to do immigration roundups.
The administration invaded American cities with a lawless
paramilitary force, unleashing chaos and deadly violence on U.S.
citizens, like Renee Good and Alex Pretti, under the pretense of
fighting the worst of the worst. The administration stopped enforcing
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, announced that in its first week in
office.
It fired dozens of experienced Justice Department lawyers and FBI
agents just because they participated in the largest criminal
investigation and prosecution in American history against the people
who attacked this Chamber and the Capitol and the Congress and the Vice
President on January 6, 2021.
This administration has also pardoned dozens of white-collar
criminals and fraudsters, including the former President of Honduras,
Juan Orlando Hernandez, an international narcotrafficker who brought
800,000 pounds of cocaine into America, saying he would shove it up the
noses of the gringos, and he was going off to jail for decades when
President Trump decided to pardon him for reasons unknown.
He has released people from prison from January 6 who went on to
commit serious new crimes against our people, such as Mr. Johnson who
got out because of his Trump pardon and went on and sexually assaulted
two 12-year-old children and now has been sentenced to life in prison
because of that. Those kids' lives have been irrevocably altered by the
mass pardon of all of these people that included armed robbers,
[[Page H3430]]
violent felons, domestic abusers, you name it, and a lot of them are
back at it right now.
Madam Speaker, the administration has repeatedly threatened to cut
off funding for State and local law enforcement in numerous
jurisdictions and attempted to commandeer State and local police
officers and resources to do the Federal Government's job at State and
local expense. All of this compromises public safety and is an insult
to the officers who work to keep us safe.
Republicans in Congress have done nothing to put the brakes on Donald
Trump's weak-on-crime agenda, and we were going to give him a chance.
The fact that he has 34 Federal criminal counts that he is convicted of
himself doesn't mean he had to be soft on crime, but he is soft on
crime, and we are not going to help the Republicans pull the wool over
America's eyes. We are not going to do that to salvage their leader who
is sinking like a stone in public opinion polls for his illegal
tariffs, his unconstitutional war, his soaring inflation, and runaway
corruption throughout the government.
Donald Trump has a staph infection, and America can see it every day.
House Republican appropriators recently rejected the Trump
administration's proposal to increase ATF's budget by 4 percent and
agent head count from 2,400 to 3,000 agents in the coming fiscal year.
Instead, they want to cut ATF's budget by $285 million, which would
leave ATF with even fewer resources to support State and local police
as they work to prevent and investigate and prosecute gun crimes.
Meaningless polemics against leftist activists and progressive
politicians have no place in a resolution purportedly meant to honor
law enforcement. This is the first time that any majority has fallen
into the political trap, but they can't help themselves because they
are so desperate because of the plummeting poll numbers of Donald Trump
and his administration.
Now that you raise it, it is worth noting that Republicans on the
House Judiciary Committee have actually voted to defund the police in
the 119th Congress. H.R. 7640, the Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of
2026, would strip Federal funding from jurisdictions that have laws
placing any limits on State and local law enforcement officers'
involvement in Federal immigration matters despite the fact that
immigration enforcement is the job of the Federal Government and not an
unfunded mandate that can be put on the States and cities and
localities.
All of this undermines public safety. I cannot support this
resolution, which lies about Republicans and this administration's real
record on crime and public safety. The observance of National Police
Week and Peace Officers Memorial Day marks a time of solemn remembrance
when our Nation should come together to honor the courage, sacrifice,
and dedication of our law enforcement officers and personnel, and
promote awareness of their service to our communities.
Let's stand united and reject this shameful effort to inject divisive
partisan politics into this resolution and this week.
If you want something that can bring us together, please support the
bill that I introduced today to create a fund to compensate the law
enforcement officers who defended the Republic, this Capitol, the
Congress, the Vice President against that violent attack on January 6,
2021. They continue to suffer the physical, medical, psychological
effects of that atrocious attack.
The Trump administration wrote a check for nearly $5 million to the
family of Ashli Babbitt despite the fact that there were two different
investigations which determined that the police had acted reasonably,
lawfully, and honorably. Yet, they just gave them a check for $5
million.
What do the families of the officers who defended our lives get? So
far they have done nothing. We are introducing legislation to make that
happen, and I hope everybody in this body who really believes that law
enforcement should be stood by and should be defended in their work
will get with us on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggs of South Carolina). Members are
reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the
President.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, you know, when I hear the term
``national consensus,'' what seems to be national consensus is that the
Democrats were the ones that promoted defund the police. I have here a
list of cities who cut a total of $1.71 billion to promote police. They
did that because they wanted to defund the police.
I hear that there is a consensus bill. The Democrats couldn't even
get a unanimous vote on the bill we just voted on just an hour or so
ago. I mean, it is just hokum. It is just flat out hokum.
Well, the national consensus is that Democrats are well-known to have
supported the defund the police movement.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Nunn), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. NUNN of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Biggs for helping
us bring this resolution forward.
Today, I rise for National Police Week where thousands of officers
and their families are in Washington, D.C., right now for memorial
services, honoring the men and women who have given everything in the
line of duty.
I will start by honoring one of those Iowans, our own, who lost his
life while serving in my community. Officer Phoukham Tran was with the
Des Moines Police Department, and he lost his life when he was hit
while serving in the line of duty by a drunk driver outside of the Iowa
State Fair. He served for more than three decades with the Des Moines
Police Department. And while he succumbed to his injuries, his legacy
of service for our community made us all recognize how much safer we
are based on what he did for all of us.
He is only 1 of 198 officers honored at the Iowa Peace Officers
Memorial in downtown Des Moines, sacrificing their lives for a safer
community, and this week we honor all of those losses, and we remember
each of those families, and our communities are better because of what
they did for us.
These are the heroes that we recognize this week. This is their
resolution, and that is what this is about. The officers who sacrificed
their lives in the line of duty are the loved ones who have served, as
well as the loved ones who are left behind, and the officers who
continue serving our communities every day despite the loss of a
friend, a comrade, and a wingman.
Unfortunately, there is a reality, as Mr. Biggs has stated, that some
elected officials, including some here in Congress and across this
country, have refused to honor or even recognize their sacrifice and
service by standing with our law enforcement.
Whether it is the radical idea of defunding the police or the self-
described sanctuary cities, these policies are a choice, a choice that
undermines the very communities they are serving, a choice that puts
officer safety at risk every single day.
{time} 1710
I am proud to say that my State of Iowa has resoundingly rejected
these policies. In Iowa, we led the Back the Blue Act that increased
penalties for violent crimes, particularly those against officers, and
increased law enforcement pay. That is truly how you stand with law
enforcement.
We also banned sanctuary policies back in 2018.
Just last year, Iowa increased penalties for assaulting a law
enforcement officer, including a mandatory minimum for a violent
offense.
These policies in Iowa have led to a historic decline in crime. As
noted, we now have the lowest homicide rate in over 125 years. Fewer
murders are good for every American.
Iowa has made its position clear, and now Congress has the
opportunity to do the same. The good work being done on the Judiciary
Committee is executing on exactly that.
Last year alone, sanctuary city jurisdictions declined almost 18,000
ICE detainer requests, many against violent offenders and habitual
offenders who were turned back onto the streets. Nearly 18,000 times,
local officials chose not to allow the police to cooperate with Federal
law enforcement and released these individuals back into the
communities, making not only
[[Page H3431]]
local officers' jobs harder but those at the Federal level, as well.
I know this much is true: When we support local law enforcement, it
works, and we have proven it. Homicide rates are the lowest in over a
century. Drug overdose deaths are at their lowest in over a decade.
Federal law enforcement is working alongside departments in States like
Iowa and so many others to remove real public safety threats.
That happens when we stand with law enforcement. That is what this
week is about: honoring those who have fallen, those who continue to
serve, and the communities that stand with our men and women on that
thin blue line.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), who is the ranking member of
the Crime and Federal Government Surveillance Subcommittee.
Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee for giving me time to speak on the floor today.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 96, which does a
disservice to our law enforcement officers by using them simply in a
political ploy.
This resolution takes cheap shots and spreads misinformation while
not doing a single thing to help law enforcement or improve public
safety, which should be our goal this and every National Police Week.
I will not repeat the misleading statements and half-truths in this
resolution, but I will actually present some facts today.
It is a fact that it was the first Trump administration when our
country experienced the largest increase in homicides ever recorded in
a single year.
It is a fact that violent crimes, especially homicides, have been
declining for nearly 4 years, beginning under the Biden administration,
long before this administration took office.
It is a fact that this historic, yearslong effort to decrease crime
began under a Democratic President and Democratic control of Congress,
which allowed us to pass unprecedented investments in law enforcement
and public safety through the American Rescue Plan Act and the
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
It is a fact that cities and States across the country, many of them
led by Democratic mayors and Democratic Governors, used that funding to
strengthen their approach to public safety by investing in their local
law enforcement, but also in education, community centers, community
violence intervention, social workers, mental health and substance
abuse services, and more.
It is a fact that these efforts to improve public safety have allowed
many cities to achieve the fewest murders since the 1960s or even
earlier.
It is a fact that the Trump administration has repeatedly eliminated
funding for public safety programs that we know work, including clawing
back $500 million in public safety grants that were already awarded.
On top of that, the Trump administration has diverted more than
25,000 law enforcement officers to immigration enforcement and away
from their jobs of investigating gun violence, drug trafficking, sex
crimes, and other major offenses, leading criminal prosecutions to fall
to their lowest points in decades.
This resolution does not invest a single dollar in effective
policing. It does not equip police with modern technology to help them
simply solve a crime. It does not invest in innovative, collaborative
approaches to public safety. It does not provide assistance to help law
enforcement agencies address the continuing crisis that they are facing
in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers. It does
not do anything to make our police officers safer on the job and more
likely to return home to their families safe and sound at the end of
their shifts.
That is what we should be doing here in the House during National
Police Week. When Democrats controlled the House, that is exactly what
we did. We passed bipartisan bills that were signed into law and are
still improving law enforcement officer safety and wellness, and
strengthening public safety. These bills include the Protecting
America's First Responders Act, the Public Safety Officer Support Act,
the COPS Counseling Act, and the Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training
Act.
Make no mistake, my opposition to this resolution is not opposition
to the statements in this resolution that we can all agree on, such as
that our law enforcement officers work tirelessly to protect our
communities. Indeed, I was proud to vote in favor of the bipartisan
resolution that we actually passed today in support of law enforcement
and honoring those who died while serving their communities, including
my own.
Yet, I must oppose this legislation that seeks to score political
points instead of investing in law enforcement and in our communities.
Madam Speaker, as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's
Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, I urge my
colleagues to stand with me in opposing this resolution and to instead
work with me on bills that will actually support law enforcement and
improve public safety.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, it is interesting to think back on 2020 as being the
measuring line that you are coming from because, when you remember,
that is the year of George Floyd. That is the year of CHAZ, CHOP, and
rioting, wholesale violence, the Portland courthouse under siege, and
the defund police movement, even by some across the aisle in Congress.
What has happened since President Trump has come in? Violent crime
rates have declined significantly in major cities across the United
States. That is what this resolution says at one point. Let's get here.
Do they deny the drop? No, they don't deny the drop. They just don't
like the fact that Donald Trump gets some credit for it. The TDS has
been on display.
The numbers are clear. Why does falling crime under renewed law and
order priorities threaten the worldview of Democrats? It shouldn't.
In Chicago, for instance, in 2025, homicides plunged 29 percent after
Donald Trump was elected, from 587 in 2024 to 417 last year.
In Columbus, Ohio, in the same period, rapes dropped 39 percent, from
1,116 down to 678.
In Houston, ag assaults fell 17 percent, from 18,590 to 15,378.
Robberies in L.A. dropped 15.3 percent, from 8,593 to 7,278.
New York City recorded the fewest shooting victims and shooting
incidents in its entire recorded history in 2025.
Democrats spent years telling us that backing the police, enforcing
laws, and rejecting soft-on-crime nonsense wouldn't work, that it was
racist, outdated, or somehow made things worse. Yet, the American
people can see the results with their own eyes--safer streets, fewer
victims. That is what is specifically stated in this resolution.
What don't they like about it? It mentions Donald J. Trump. It is
that simple. They should be coming along with us.
Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
{time} 1720
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The worst Congress in modern American history cannot even write a
resolution praising law enforcement that maintains bipartisan support--
something that every other Congress, Democratic or Republican, has been
able to do--because they are so desperate to cover up their miserable
record.
The Trump administration has done nothing more to improve public
safety than it has done to lower the ruinous inflation they unleashed
on us with their illegal tariffs or to open up the Strait of Hormuz,
which was closed only because of the illegal war Trump has already
spent $29 billion of our money on.
Well, our colleagues have some very fine rhetoric about how much they
love public safety. So why don't we look at their fiscal year 2027
budget proposal. They won't fess up to the fact that
[[Page H3432]]
they just slashed $500 million out of local and State crime fighting
and victim assistance grants, but let's talk about the future.
Well, what does their fiscal year 2027 budget proposal say? It
proposes significant funding cuts for grant programs under the Office
on Violence Against Women, including a $14 million cut to transitional
housing grants and a $15 million cut to legal assistance grants to help
survivors and their children.
They want to cut 62.1 percent, nearly a half a billion dollars from
the discretionary budget request for COPS, which would translate into
complete elimination of the anti-methamphetamine task forces, the anti-
heroin task forces, the Community Policing Development Project, de-
escalation training, and the dramatic reduction in STOP School
Violence, and other crime-fighting projects.
So you are talking about defunding the police and defunding criminal
justice. That is what their proposal is for next year.
They want to cut millions of dollars from successful programs to fund
the Office on Violence Against Women, of course. For example, they want
to cut millions from the Financial Assistance to Victims Program. They
want to cut from consolidated youth-oriented programming, access to
sexual assault nurse exams $12 million and on and on.
That is their budget.
They want to cut $538 million from the Byrne Discretionary Community
Project Grants in the Department of Justice budget. They want to
eliminate the Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention
Initiative whose great successes they want to take credit for. They
want to cut $50 million from that.
They want to cut $17 million in grants from the Matthew Shepard and
James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes community policing program. And it goes on
and on. You don't have to go and make up a bunch of mirages and ghosts
about defunding the police. That is in their budget for next year. They
want to dismantle one criminal justice program after another.
But of course, they want to increase the military budget to $1.5
trillion, which they all leapt up to support even before hearing about
what specific military projects and arms projects were contained in it.
They want $1.5 trillion for that budget as they continue to drive our
budget deficit up to the heavens. They have added already more than
$3.5 trillion to the debt. So it is fiscally irresponsible, and it is
irresponsible from the standpoint of public safety.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I said last time I was prepared
to close. I assumed that was his closing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman reserve?
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reserved the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. Is the
gentleman prepared to close?
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I am prepared
to keep going. I am not afraid to keep the debate going. Whatever the
gentleman pleases.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Arizona reserve?
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, which they
propose to slash and essentially dismantle, is responsible for
advancing the practice of community policing at the State, local,
territorial, and Tribal levels. The COPS Office awards grants to hire
community policing professionals, that is something that they propose
to gut.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman is
prepared to close. He seems to be in a hurry.
Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 11 minutes
remaining.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Look, it is unfortunate that we have reached this place, Madam
Speaker. Every prior Congress has been able to honor the police on Law
Enforcement Week. Yet, they insisted on scribbling polemical, partisan
graffiti, attacking Democrats and Progressives and so on, using a
nonbinding ceremonial resolution to try to pick a political fight,
which is not very wise given their miserable record in terms of crime
fighting.
One of the first things they did was they said they were no longer
going to enforce the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Then they gutted
anti-terrorism and counterintelligence programs in the Department of
Justice. They pardoned 1,600 or 1,500 Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Klan
members, violent rioters, and insurrectionists from January 6. Even his
own Vice President urged him--or said he supposed the President was not
going to pardon those who had committed violence, but he pardoned
everybody.
Prior to Donald Trump, you know, the way the Presidents did it was
there was a pardon office in the Department of Justice, and they would
look at very specific requests and applications that came in for a
pardon, and they would try to judge whether the person was truly
reformed, truly rehabilitated.
Every President up until Trump insisted that they actually pay off
their fines and pay restitution to their victims. But no, not President
Trump. He said: I am going to take all of them together. I am going to
pardon them en masse, 1,600 of them. Some of them were armed robbers,
domestic felons, violent assaulters. Some maybe it was a first offense,
but they were all mixed in together, and then they got their pardon,
and they were forgiven for all of their fines and all of the
restitution that they owed to their victims.
Then the President continued that rampage with all of the white-
collar criminals and fraudsters and drug dealers he pardoned. Some of
them owed tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars. It was
all forgiven. That money was, therefore, transferred from the victims
of these crimes right back to the criminals. This is the person that
they want to praise as being tough on crime and such a great law-and-
order President.
We were willing to look--aside from the fact that he had 34 criminal
convictions of his own and was an adjudicated sexual assailant under
the civil law of New York--and say maybe he will actually invest in
fighting crime. But no, it has been quite the opposite. He has been
doing everything in his power to undermine criminal law enforcement.
Now they want to take credit for what the mayors and Governors have
been doing for several years now, which is causing a dramatic decrease
in crime by investing in all of the programs that they have pulled the
plug on.
They just slashed more than $500 million from Department of Justice
grants going out to the States and the cities. You want to look for
weak on crime? You want to look for defunding the police? Look no
further. You found it in the Trump administration. Elon Musk and DOGE
came right over to the Department of Justice and slashed $500 million
from program moneys that were appropriated by Congress and programmed
by the Department of Justice, and they said: Stop the delivery of this
money. We are going to cut off these grants.
The reason they don't say anything about it is because they know it
is true. We heard all about it in the Judiciary Committee. That is the
real track record.
Now we see in their budget request for next year they want to
continue to ravage the crime-fighting budget of the country.
Why did President Trump pardon the former President of Honduras who
brought 400 tons of cocaine into America? Why? He brought in 800,000
pounds of cocaine. He said: We are going to shove it up the nostrils of
the gringos. That is what he said. And Donald Trump pardoned him,
saving him from decades in Federal prison.
{time} 1730
How come they are not talking about that?
We wouldn't have brought any of it up if they had just come forward
with
[[Page H3433]]
the same consensus, bipartisan resolution that we have always had. But
no, they wanted to pick a partisan fight.
Well, they picked the wrong people, because we know what has actually
been happening. We know who is standing strong for law and order and
who is bringing us down into the mud of lawlessness and
authoritarianism in the country.
Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to my colleague for a
moment if he wants to respond about the pardon of the former President
of Honduras, whether that is something that our colleagues on that side
of the aisle support or not. I don't know if he is interested in
responding to that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland yields.
Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward
the President.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I was just offering to yield if he wanted
to respond to that question, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I reclaim my time.
We consider the safety of the people to be the highest law that there
is, along with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately, this administration has been trampling all of it. We
saw what happened in Minneapolis where we had U.S. citizens shot down
at pointblank range in broad daylight for exercising their First
Amendment rights, the rights contained in the First Amendment of our
Constitution, shot down in cold blood.
Then we saw their then-Attorney General, Ms. Bondi, come out and say
that these people were engaged in acts of terror and had been
threatening people, which was a lie, and she refused the opportunity to
apologize for what she had done.
There will be a real investigation. There will be a real
investigation of those homicides. There were only, up to that point,
three homicides, three murders that took place in Minneapolis, in
Minnesota, up until that point of the year, and two of them were
committed by Federal agents, two of the three. Well, that is a pretty
powerful statement about the law-and-order administration that they
want to praise in this completely partisan resolution that they want to
push through the House of Representatives today.
So the Constitution is under attack, right? They promulgate executive
orders telling thousands of lawyers at different law firms they cannot
enter Federal buildings, including Federal courthouses, which makes it
difficult to practice law.
They have used their power of the Federal Communications Commission
to force them to settle completely bogus, frivolous lawsuits that the
President has brought against media companies. Then they have installed
their minders, their little spies, into TV networks, like something out
of Putin's Russia or Orban's Hungary.
They have been systematically undermining the free press in the
country. They are attacking the Constitution, and they are attacking
the Bill of Rights.
It is so bad that even their stacked-and-packed, gerrymandered
Supreme Court has had to strike them down for things like their
illegal, unconstitutional tariffs, their global trade war against the
world, which has been ruinous for our economy, compounded only by his
illegal, constitutional war on Iran where he usurped the power of
Congress to declare war.
James Madison said it had to be the Representatives of the people to
declare war, not a President, not a Vice President, not Tulsi Gabbard
or their leaky chat group. No, it has got to be the Representatives of
the people, because the kings were constantly plunging their people
into wars of conceit and vanity and imperial plunder.
They have created lawlessness from the highest levels of the
government all the way down to the streets, where they are pulling the
plug on Federal grants to help State and local governments fight crime,
while they pardon narcotraffickers, white-collar fraudsters, people
scamming American citizens.
So we are going to have to try to restore real law and order in the
country, and that begins at the top. That begins with the Presidency,
and it begins with everybody who is in government.
I wish that we could just go ahead and honor law enforcement without
all of the partisan graffiti they have scrawled all over the
resolution. We would show just as before, you have an overwhelming vote
when you do it the right way, and we honor the people who have served
us.
I invite our friends to join us in honoring and standing by the men
and women who defended us on January 6. One hundred fifty of them were
wounded, injured, hospitalized, disfigured, and disabled. Some of them
were disabled and forced out of police work because of the injuries
inflicted by the mob that came here.
They have given nearly $5 million to Ashley Babbitt's family, despite
the fact that two different investigations showed that the police had
acted reasonably and lawfully in what they did.
How about millions of dollars to the families of the police officers
who lost their lives as a result of that violence? Let's show for real
that we are committed to law enforcement by standing by the police
officers who defend us every single day.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The gentleman from Arizona has 20
minutes remaining.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We heard a lot about pardons. It is not mentioned at all in this
resolution.
But it is real fun, you know, when you think about pardons, and I
have got article after article here. There is a whole stack of them
right here of the more than 3,000 people that President Biden pardoned,
some massive fraudsters who never paid their restitution. Odd, isn't
it?
Quite frankly, Joe Biden was going on a pardon-issuing spree to such
an extent he even pardoned a few Members of Congress. How about that.
That is pretty interesting to me.
Let's see. If you didn't know what was in this resolution, as most
Americans don't and anybody watching, you would think this is all about
how heinous of an individual Donald J. Trump, our President, is. You
saw that TDS on display.
But I am going to do a favor for everybody. I am going to go over the
11 clauses in this resolution that honor police officers.
By the way, Democrats couldn't even get a unanimous vote when the
resolution we just voted on listed fallen officers. They think we are
creating partisanship with this. That is not the case.
Facts are stubborn things. They don't want to honor police. They were
the party of defund the police.
Let's take a look at the clauses.
Number one: ``Whereas the brave men and women in law enforcement work
tirelessly and relentlessly to safeguard the communities they are sworn
to protect, serving as the backbone of public safety across our
Nation.''
What do my colleagues on the other side find controversial here? What
is it? Do they deny that officers work tirelessly? Do they deny that
communities depend on them? Because if you can't even affirm this, your
problem isn't with the resolution. It is with reality.
Number two: ``Whereas law enforcement officers bear the critical
responsibility of upholding the rule of law and maintaining the safety,
stability, and public order upon which our communities depend.''
What offends them, the rule of law part or the idea that safety and
stability actually matter? They never touched on this.
Number three: ``Whereas law enforcement officers routinely and
selflessly risk their own lives and safety to combat crime, remove
dangerous and lethal drugs from our streets, and stand in defense of
the most vulnerable among us.''
What is their objection? What is their objection? Do they think law
enforcement don't risk their lives, that drugs aren't lethal or that
the vulnerable don't deserve that shield? They
[[Page H3434]]
should tell the widows and orphans of fallen officers why this fact
bothers them.
Number four: ``Whereas law enforcement officers strengthen our
communities through outreach, mentorship, crisis response, and
countless daily acts of service that frequently go unrecognized.''
Which of these acts of service do they reject? The mentorship? The
crisis intervention?
Number five: ``Whereas from resolving neighborhood disputes to
checking in on elderly residents and guiding youth programs, officers
provide a quiet and steady presence that extends far beyond traditional
law enforcement duties.''
Is it the neighborhood dispute resolution that you oppose or the very
idea of a steady, positive police presence?
{time} 1740
What is it that you oppose?
Number six: ``Whereas rhetoric and policies from leftist activists
and progressive politicians seek to defund or dismantle local police
departments, undermine public safety, and place both officers and the
communities they serve at greater risk.''
I thought this was your goal. For years many of you and your allies
championed it in the streets. You posted on official social media
accounts. You introduced legislation and redirected budgets away from
law enforcement. The defund the police movement wasn't some fever
dream. It was your rallying cry.
Do you deny now that that rhetoric ever existed?
Do you deny that progressive politicians and leftist activists
aggressively pushed these policies in cities across the country?
Do you deny the explosion in violent crime?
You can't spend years trying to kneecap, starve, and demonize the
police and then act outraged when a resolution dares to call it what it
was: a dangerous failure that hurt people.
Number seven: ``Whereas sanctuary city policies that restrict
cooperation with Federal immigration authorities can compel local law
enforcement agencies to divert already limited resources and actively
encourage resentment toward local law enforcement.''
Again, I thought this was your goal. We have heard it loud and clear
from dozens of your own politicians from Minnesota to Boston,
California and beyond, people proudly declaring they will not cooperate
with Federal immigration enforcement. They will shield the illegal
aliens, even the worst of the worst: murderers, rapists, and gang
members. They will keep them out on the streets rather than let ICE do
its job.
Do they deny these sanctuary policies exist and deliberately restrict
cooperation with Federal authorities?
Almost one-third of Americans live in sanctuary jurisdictions. You
can't champion policies that protect criminals over cops and then act
shocked when the resolution says sanctuary policies sabotage law
enforcement at every level.
``Whereas the Trump administration's focus on restoring law and order
has contributed to a notable decline in homicide rates, with levels
reaching among the lowest recorded in over a century.''
Data is data, and facts are facts. A report by the Council on
Criminal Justice says this: Homicides in 35 major cities declined by 21
percent from 2024 to 2025. Just in Washington, D.C., President Trump is
protecting our citizens from failed progressive governance. We have
seen incredible drops in violence. Homicides are down 52 percent. Sex
abuse is down 48 percent, robbery is down 23 percent, and vehicle theft
is down 56 percent. All crime overall is down 25 percent, and
Washington, D.C., is on pace for roughly 42 murders this year, the
lowest rates since at least 1930. Compare that to the 274 murders in
2023.
Number nine: ``Whereas drug overdose deaths in the United States have
declined significantly, reaching their lowest levels since 2019.''
Which part of that is fake news to you? The decline? The
significance? Or is it the timing as enforcement and border focus
tighten?
Under Biden administration's catastrophic open-border policies,
fentanyl poured across the southern border like never before, over
100,000 deaths, killing tens of thousands. That wasn't an accident. It
was a predictable deadly result in prioritizing illegal immigration
over American lives.
Now with the Trump administration's renewed focus on securing the
border, cracking down on traffickers and backing law enforcement, the
body count is falling. Lives are being saved. We are reversing that
damage.
They should own their failure or at least get out of the way while we
clean it up.
Number 11: ``Whereas law enforcement officers deserve our deepest
respect, unwavering support, and profound gratitude.''
Let me ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: If you vote
against this resolution, are you voting against gratitude for these men
and women who deserve our grateful attitudes and thankfulness?
Explain it.
Mr. Speaker, he is out of order. He knows he is getting whipped, and
that is why he is out of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is out of order. The gentleman
from Maryland has not been recognized.
The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. BIGGS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, that is a perfect example of what
happens when the Democrats cannot answer for their policies that have
wrecked cities and demeaned police officers. They have to be rude and
interrupt. They can't sit silent because they know that they are
profoundly responsible for the results of their policies.
I want them to explain to every officer watching right now, explain
to their families, and explain to their spouses who lost a partner and
the parentless children and tell them why basic appreciation for the
people who risk their lives is somehow too much to ask.
Tell them why they don't deserve respect. Tell them why they don't
deserve support.
After everything, after your defund movement, you cheered. After the
sanctuary policies you defended and you continue to defend, after the
crime waves your ideology unleashed, and after watching this country
bleed for years under your failed experiments of policies, you can't
bring yourself to say a simple thank you.
Enough. The American people are done with your excuses. They are done
watching you demonize the only people standing between them and
anarchy.
We support our police. We will back the blue, and we will pass this
resolution to send one unmistakable message: In America, law
enforcement officers have friends, they have allies, and they have the
unwavering gratitude of a grateful nation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote to support this resolution, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1275, the previous question is ordered
on the concurrent resolution and the preamble.
The question is on adoption of the concurrent 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. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________