Glenn Ivey

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, a few hours ago, I stood with members of unions, employees at the Department of Labor, and people walking down the street who saw what we were doing and wanted to join in and support the cause. As I stood out there and spoke in favor of the efforts they were making to be heard, to protect their jobs and protect their ability to work for the American people, it reminded me of my father who had worked in that same building four decades ago until he was forced out during the Reagan administration. To my colleagues who were there today, I thank them for joining. To the employees who were out there, I say this: I lived through what you are going through right now and I understand. For that reason, I recommit myself to working hard to protect your rights, to make sure that you don't get forced out of government, even though you haven't done anything wrong. You have the experience and the expertise to do the work that the American people need, and we want to make sure that you have a chance to continue to do that. I thank the Congressional Labor Caucus as well for standing up and making sure that we continue to fight here in Congress to protect their rights. Lastly, I thank all of those people out there, whether they are union members or attorneys or employees, who are fighting every day to get their point across and make sure that we are heard by the Trump administration. Thank you for what you are doing. I urge you to continue to do the work that you are doing because it is making a difference. The Trump administration has made many moves. Many of them have been, in my view, unlawful and unconstitutional, especially the ones that are impacting the employee rights that these government employees have earned over the decades, like my father who joined the Department of Labor after his service in the Air Force. They deserve to be treated fairly, with respect, and with recognition of the legal rights that they deserve to have. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding additional time. Mr. Speaker, we know how to do this the right way. The American people want us to do it the right way. We know the judicial nomination selection process has been broken for some time. This could be a way to take a step in the right direction for fixing that. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' today, and let's get back to the drawing board and find a way to work together in a bipartisan fashion, yielding an apolitical result. Elections have consequences. Mr. Trump is going to have his chance to put nominees on the court, for sure, but let's try to do it in a way that looks out over time and makes it more equitable over time so that we can have a balanced judiciary that the people believe in and have confidence in and don't feel that it is political and partisan.

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 4199, the JUDGES Act. I appreciate the comments that have come from the Republican side this morning, Chairman Jordan in particular. We have had a chance to pass bipartisan legislation out of that committee. In fact, a couple of those bills have been mine, cosponsored with Republican Wesley Hunt. I know we can get it done. I know we can work in a bipartisan fashion and get legislation out of the committee when we choose to do so. Mr. Speaker, the idea behind this bill was to take the politics out of judicial nominations and selections. I think it is pretty clear. I think everyone would agree that this system has been broken for some time. The Republicans point to the Bork nomination. On the Democratic side, we look at what happened with Merrick Garland and his Supreme Court nomination, which was blocked. He had to wait almost a year and wasn't even given a hearing during that time. Then, after that, Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed by the Senate in about a 3-week period, if I recall correctly, even though that happened just before the election and President Biden would have been in place to make the selection for the Supreme Court at that time. This bill was aimed at trying to get around that and take the politics out of the selection process by having the decision made with respect to the passage of the legislation before we knew who the President was going to be. I thought that was a good way to go. I didn't cosponsor this bill, frankly, because I was a little worried that we would end up in exactly the place where we are today. After the election was held, even though this bill came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in June and was passed unanimously in the Senate in August, the House Judiciary Committee had several markups in September and August, so we could have taken the bill up then, but it never happened. In fact, it didn't happen until after the election and President Trump was selected. Guess what happened then. Now that we are at the eleventh hour, we didn't even bother to have the committee markup process happen. My colleagues brought it straight to the floor and are now asking us to vote for it today on this expedited basis now that Republicans know who is going to win. Mr. Speaker, we know how to do bipartisan legislation. Mr. Issa, the gentleman on the other side, I know has done excellent bipartisan legislation, working with members of this committee on the Democratic side, and he has a long history of doing that. I think we can replicate that again. Today, I ask that we not pass this bill. I ask my colleagues to vote against it. Let's go back to the drawing board. Let's take another crack at making sure that we do this in a bipartisan way. I agree that we need more judges. In fact, the courthouse that I practiced in, D.C. Superior Court, is short 10 judges. We need them there. We need them in other courts that I practiced in. We need them all over the country, but let's do it in the right way.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a true American hero, Lieutenant George T. McCree, III, from Clinton, Maryland. Lt. McCree's service to our Nation and to this Capitol deserves our highest praise and recognition. In his various roles with the United States Capitol Police, Lt. McCree protected not only this hallowed institution, but also the principles it represents: democracy, justice, and opportunity. He served in many capacities here on the Hill including as a dispatcher, special agent, instructor, sergeant, and lieutenant. Those who worked alongside him remember his professionalism, his quiet strength, and his unshakeable commitment to ensuring that the Capitol remained a beacon of freedom and governance. Lt. McCree's story reminds us that the legacy of those who serve is not just written in the battles they fight, but also in the lives they touch and the barrier they break. As we stand here today, in a building he has protected, let us remember his myriad contributions. I know that even as Lt. McCree retires from the United States Capitol Police, that he will continue to serve his community and our region as an involved citizen, parent and proud military veteran.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9563, the Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act. I am proud to partner with my co-lead and my friend from Texas, Congressman Wesley Hunt, on this important legislation. I also thank Ranking Member Nadler and Representatives Issa, Fitzgerald, Lee, and Johnson for their support, as well. In response to Putin's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the United States imposed numerous sanctions and export controls on Russia. The Protecting Americans from Russian Litigation Act would protect American companies that are targeted by Russian litigants seeking damages resulting from good faith compliance with these sanctions. Unlike the United Kingdom and the European Union, the U.S. Federal law does not currently protect companies complying with U.S. sanctions and export controls from litigation. Because of this, some Russian entities subjected to sanctions have sued American companies in Russian courts, resulting in significant financial penalties to American businesses in certain cases. This bill would prevent Russian entities from seeking relief for these claims in Federal court, thereby ensuring American companies are not punished for their good faith compliance with U.S. sanctions. Additionally, this bill does not interfere with or limit the rights, remedies, or causes of action available to victims of international terrorism. This commonsense legislation would protect American companies and ensure Russia is held accountable for its illegal invasion of Ukraine. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support passage of this bill.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9151, the Protecting American Industry and Labor from International Trade Crimes Act. As the complexities of international trade intensify, abusive practices and circumvention of trade rules escalate commensurately. Trade crimes impair our economy, disadvantage our workers, disrespect our consumers, and offend our national sensibilities. To halt these practices, we must reinforce America's capacity to identify, investigate, and interdict these crimes and empower the Department of Justice to prosecute the perpetrators. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to co-lead and be an original cosponsor of H.R. 9151, which is bipartisan legislation that would achieve these objectives. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Representatives Hinson, Krishnamoorthi, Moolenaar, and all the other co-leads and cosponsors, for joining together to confront this challenge. I especially appreciate my colleagues' receptivity to my suggestions about the trade crime unit's structure, concentrating on a national team based at Main Justice with the ability to deploy experts, as needed, to ports of entry around the country where trade crimes are occurring. By focusing resources at Main Justice, we will expand our core competencies in confronting these crimes nationwide so that we will retain the upper hand, even if perpetrators redirect their activities to a different location in the United States. This bill would establish a trade crimes unit at DOJ to take aim against a litany of crimes that are prevalent in international trade, including crimes resulting from products made by use of forced labor, sellers abusing the de minimis exemption, foreign exporters evading duties and tariffs by shipping products through third-party nations, and products that violate safety and health rules. By creating and funding a trade crimes unit at DOJ, this bill would equip our country with expert investigators and attorneys who are dedicated to safeguarding our people, our jobs, and our economy. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation.

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6826, a bill to designate the visitor and education center at Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine as the Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and Education Center. This is a well-deserved honor for Senator Sarbanes. He played a key role in securing the Federal funding for the visitor center at Fort McHenry. Fort McHenry is an important historic site. Thanks to Senator Sarbanes, visitors have access to exhibits and resources to further their education about the fort and its key importance in the War of 1812. Beyond his work at Fort McHenry, Senator Sarbanes was a giant, both in the United States Senate and in the State of Maryland. About 30 years ago this month, I had the honor of joining the staff and serving as counsel to Senator Paul Sarbanes during the Whitewater investigations. I had watched him during the Watergate hearings when I was a young man. I was one of those strange kids who came home from school and put on the hearings. We didn't have C-SPAN yet, so this was my first chance to actually see Congress in action. The two people who stood out for me were Barbara Jordan and Paul Sarbanes. He was a great boss and a great mentor for me, and I wouldn't be here today in the House of Representatives without his influence, his guidance, and his assistance to me and my career. It was a tremendous privilege to work for him. It is a tremendous privilege to be able to speak on his behalf today, and I ask all of my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 670, the IMPACTT Human Trafficking Act, is bipartisan legislation that has a dual purpose. It would establish the program within the DHS' Homeland Security Investigation unit, or HSI. It would also codify and expand the HSI Victim Assistance Program. By establishing the IMPACTT program, this bill would ensure that outreach and training are available to HSI agents, forensic interviewers, survivor assistance specialists, task force officers, and other partners who work with survivors of human trafficking. This work can be extremely taxing, exposing these individuals to the trauma of those they are working to help. By ensuring that these individuals receive support, such as through training to help recognize burnout and secondary traumatic stress, this legislation would help them be more effective, reduce turnover, and ensure that they can continue the important work of fighting human trafficking and assisting survivors. The second component of this legislation would enhance the HSI Victim Assistance Program to ensure that every human trafficking survivor identified by HSI is assigned a survivor assistance specialist and that this program provides survivors with the support they need. Survivor assistance specialists are a critical component of HSI's survivor-centered approach to addressing human trafficking. These specialists connect survivors to resources they might need and might not otherwise be aware of, help survivors understand their investigative and prosecutorial process, and train other law enforcement and private-sector partners so that survivors receive assistance that is survivor-centered, trauma-informed, and linguistically appropriate. Currently, only the largest HSI field offices have a victim assistance specialist, but this legislation would ensure that every HSI office with a human trafficking or child exploitation task force would have a survivor assistance specialist to carry out this important work. The Victim Assistance Program also provides forensic interview support so that survivors are not retraumatized during investigative interviews, and this bill would ensure that more survivors receive that support. Finally, this bill would help address the immediate needs of survivors of human trafficking by providing funds for clothing, food, transportation, hygiene products, and temporary shelter. This benefits the survivors by promoting their safety and reducing the chances that they end up back under the control of a trafficker. It also prevents crime and future victimization by increasing the chances that survivors are willing and able to assist law enforcement in bringing the perpetrators of trafficking to justice. As the State's attorney of Prince George's County, I saw some of the harrowing experiences survivors of human trafficking experienced. This bipartisan legislation would provide important support to help them as well as those who work with them. I commend Senator Peters and my House colleagues who jointly led the companion to this bill: Representatives Joyce, Titus, Wagner, and Slotkin. It is truly encouraging to see a bipartisan, bicameral bill that supports the survivors of human trafficking, and I hope we can all work together on more bipartisan legislation like this in the future. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, S. 670, the IMPACTT Human Trafficking Act, would enable more survivors to participate in the investigation and prosecution of the crimes committed against them and prevent future trafficking crimes. I support this bipartisan legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of my bill, the Department of Homeland Security Policy Issuance Review Act, H.R. 6231. DHS has over 800 Departmentwide policies. While many of these policies relate to internal management functions of the Department, others provide critical guidance for employees on issues such as use of force by law enforcement officers, the personal and professional use of social media, and the ethical code of conduct. The Department has a requirement that all policies be reviewed every 2 years. However, a recent review by the Committee on Homeland Security found that DHS rarely met this deadline, and some foundational policies had not received meaningful review since their issuance. My bill addresses this shortcoming by making the Department's policy issuance and review process a formal responsibility of the DHS Under Secretary for management. My bill also provides Congress with greater transparency into how and when DHS updates policies by requiring the Department to provide Congress an annual briefing on policies issued, reviewed, and canceled. My bill also requires DHS to inform Congress on its staffing needs to help ensure the Department has the resources needed to review and revise its policies in a timely manner. H.R. 6231 is necessary to ensure that Congress has greater visibility into how the Department is managing its policy issuance program and to prevent any lengthy delays in the review and revision of critical departmental documents. In closing, I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for cosponsoring this bill, Representatives Clarke, Bishop of North Carolina, and Ezell. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee for passing this legislation out of committee unanimously. Finally, I thank DHS staff, who provided valuable insight and feedback on the Department's policy review process. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the Producing Advanced Technologies for Homeland Security Act. Other transaction authority, or OTA, is a vital tool that enables DHS to more quickly obtain cutting-edge, emerging technologies that address specific operational needs. For example, DHS has used OTA to fund research and development of digital IDs that people can store on their phone and advanced technology to improve the detection of explosive materials at airport checkpoints. This bipartisan bill also provides for increased transparency into the Department's use of OTA by requiring DHS to notify the public and Congress when it uses the authority to enter into agreements worth over $1 million or for agreements involving artificial intelligence. A lapse in DHS' authority would impede the Department's ability to rapidly develop solutions for border security, aviation security, and other critical homeland security concerns. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago when OTA did briefly lapse, that is exactly what happened. DHS was forced to delay or stop 48 projects. DHS estimates that if OTA lapses again next week, 77 planned and underway projects would be halted or delayed. A potential halt in OTA would be inefficient, wasteful, and potentially harmful to the security of our homeland. In closing, I thank my colleague, Congressman Guest, for sponsoring this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the GAO Database Modernization Act would amend the Congressional Review Act to require Federal agencies to report to the GAO certain information about agency rules that are made ineffective due to an agency action or other reason. The Congressional Review Act, or CRA, requires an agency to submit a report to both Houses of Congress and to GAO whenever it promulgates a rule. This reporting requirement enables Congress to be kept regularly informed of rulemaking activity by all administrative agencies. GAO has created a publicly accessible database which tracks all rules submitted by the agencies. However, agencies do not currently report updates, suspensions, or alterations of rules to GAO unless any modifications are part of a newly promulgated regulation. To increase transparency, this legislation amends the CRA to require agencies to submit a report to GAO on rules that are revoked, suspended, amended, or otherwise made ineffective. While I do not oppose this legislation, I do note that I have concerns with the underlying Congressional Review Act, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to examine whether the law is operating as intended. The CRA, which provides a fast-track process whereby Congress can overturn an agency regulation, could be misused to undermine lifesaving regulations to protect public health and safety. Regulations take significant time, resources, public input, and expertise to craft, but the CRA allows narrow, partisan majorities in Congress to do away with them without any of the deliberative processes that went into making them. Since the CRA also prohibits an agency from issuing another rule ``in substantially the same form'' without congressional authorization, it allows Congress to tie an agency's hands well into the future. I hope this legislation is a modest improvement to oversight and transparency, but I hope that this is just the beginning of a larger conversation about the CRA and its impact on the regulatory process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, although I hope that we can engage in a broader conversation about the Congressional Review Act, I appreciate that this bill provides additional transparency into the regulatory process. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my fellow Democrats and I strongly support the intent of this bill, which is to reduce our reliance on global adversaries and build up an industrial manufacturing base in the United States by prohibiting DHS from procuring batteries from certain Chinese companies. I am grateful the committee included Ranking Member Thompson's amendment to the original bill, which expands the number of companies subject to the prohibition. In addition to the six Chinese companies named in the original bill, Ranking Member Thompson's amendment expands the prohibition to include any companies using Uyghur forced labor identified by the Secretary of Defense as Chinese military companies and engaging in activities contrary to U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, according to the Department of Commerce. I also thank the committee for including Representative Suozzi's amendment, which requires DHS to produce a report on the potential impacts and costs associated with carrying out this bill before the prohibition goes into effect. The report will help DHS and Congress manage any unanticipated negative consequences from this bill. While these amendments have made the bill better, there are lingering concerns, including how a ban on Chinese-made batteries will impact DHS' ability to buy American-made electric vehicles, since most American EV producers use Chinese-sourced batteries. The bill could also further be improved by requiring DHS to identify ways to foster job creation and economic growth here at home and ensure the inclusion of economically disadvantaged individuals and small businesses when purchasing batteries. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Republicans and Democrats alike recognize the threat posed by China and stand unified in defense of our national and homeland security. H.R. 8631 is imperfect, but it is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 8663, the Detection Equipment and Technology Evaluation to Counter the Threat of Fentanyl and Xylazine Act is a critical piece of legislation that empowers the DHS Science and Technology Directorate to enhance the ability of all levels of law enforcement to detect and disrupt illicit substances. This bipartisan bill, which is cosponsored in the House by my colleagues Congressmen Lou Correa and Don Davis, was initially introduced by Senators Cornyn, Ossoff, Lankford, and Sinema this past spring. The bill mandates the development of advanced technologies, such as portable drug detectors that require minimal sample handling, equipment capable of separating complex drug mixtures into identifiable components, and the use of artificial intelligence to identify emerging threats. These innovations are designed to improve the efficiency and accuracy of drug detection efforts, providing law enforcement with the tools they need to stay ahead of traffickers and safeguard our communities. While this bipartisan bill is undeniably a step forward in combating the widespread issue of illicit substances like fentanyl and xylazine, it is essential to recognize that its impact goes far beyond the narrow scope of any nation's involvement, including China's. The challenges of detecting these dangerous drugs are global in nature, and the solutions proposed by this bill address a broad spectrum of threats that law enforcement faces across the United States. This bill is primarily a response and provides comprehensive benefits in bolstering our national security and public health infrastructure. Therefore, while we strongly support the bill's objectives, we resist the effort to politicize any aspect of this critical issue, especially given the complexity and widespread nature of this action. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Republicans and Democrats alike recognize the challenges facing law enforcement in the detection of dangerous drugs like fentanyl. H.R. 8663 is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because we should have more oversight and information on the threat of tunnels going under our borders and the actions our government is taking to counter them. Tunnels are used by transnational criminal organizations looking to make a profit, and most of the people using them are not Chinese. Over the past 30 years, cartels have created illegal tunnels under border walls and barriers to smuggle people and drugs into this country and send out money and firearms, including assault weapons. Since 1990, law enforcement has discovered more than 230 tunnels across U.S. borders. These tunnels can be sophisticated. In 2019, CBP discovered a tunnel near the San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico, border that was over three-quarters of a mile long. This bill simply creates an annual reporting requirement to keep Congress informed on the DHS' efforts to counter illicit cross-border tunnels and hold bad actors accountable. The information this bipartisan piece of legislation requires will help inform Congress of the situation on the border and what authorities or resources might be needed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill is a step in the right direction. Receiving information from the Department of Homeland Security on an annual basis will improve Congress' efforts to counter illicit cross- border tunnels and hold bad actors accountable. I support this bipartisan piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this Memorial Day weekend to honor Navy Special Warfare Operator 1st Class Christopher J. Chambers and Navy Special Warfare Operator 2nd Class Nathan Gage Ingram, who tragically died during a mission in the Arabian Sea on January 11 of this year. I knew Chris personally. He was a native of Prince George's County, Maryland, and a beloved son of the Cheverly community. He participated in the Boys and Girls Club and was a member of the Cheverly swim team. Chris' presence as a leader impacted the lives of many, including my kids, while he coached them during their swim team participation. He attended Bishop McNamara High School and graduated in 2009 from the University of Maryland, College Park. Chris began his service in the United States Navy in 2012, graduating from SEAL training in 2014. A decorated servicemember, his awards include the Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medal with Combat ``C'' and three Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medals. He is survived by his parents, Charles and Lois Chambers; his wife, Alyssa Chambers; and daughter, Kennedy Chambers. Nathan Gage Ingram of Texas enlisted in the United States Navy in 2019 and went on to graduate from SEAL training in 2021. As we approach this Memorial Day, let us pause to remember Chris, Nathan, and all brave servicemembers who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our Nation. We thank them for their service, and our prayers are forever with their families and their loved ones.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on August 29, 2002, two deputy sheriffs in Prince George's County, Elizabeth Magruder and James Arnaud, were ambushed in the home of the shooter's family. They had been called to the house to execute a warrant, a health warrant, because the parents were concerned about the erratic behavior of their son. Elizabeth Magruder was shot in the back of the head, and James Arnaud was shot and killed, as well. He left behind a wife, two children, and two grandchildren. She left behind a husband and a 3-year-old son. I had just been elected State's attorney in Prince George's County, but I hadn't even been sworn in yet. One of my first duties was to attend the funerals for both of them. My first memorial service during Police Week was in their honor. Therefore, I take this very seriously. The National Police Week commemoration, I think, is something that is very grave, and we should treat it with great respect. Unfortunately, ambushes like the one Magruder and Arnaud faced that day haven't ended. We just saw recently the ambush in Charlotte. Four officers were killed, and eight were shot. We have had others like that all over the country. My thought when we had Police Week approaching was that we would approach this in a bipartisan manner. I actually reached out and worked with Congressman Hunt from Texas, and we put together a bill that was aimed at expanding the number of police officers because we know that there are shortages across the country. We know that we need to increase the pipeline so that more officers will come and take on these dangerous tasks and stand in harm's way, or stand in the gap, as the pastor said this morning. It was a bipartisan effort. It came out of the committee by voice vote. It was passed on the floor in a similar capacity. The Senate companion bill was passed, as well. We are looking forward to that becoming the law of the land in short order. Unfortunately, much of the legislation that has come after that has been anything but bipartisan. The legislation we are speaking to today, I am afraid, falls into that category. When I took a look at the resolution, H. Res. 1213, I had hoped to see praise go out to our officers across the country for the work that they do and for the officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. Indeed, there are paragraphs that speak to that. Unfortunately, there are passages that don't. My colleague from Virginia and his comments a few moments ago made some of the same kinds of comments, with respect to, for example, the defund the police argument. My Republican colleagues have concluded that ``defund the police,'' a phrase that was used several years ago, is somehow fueling the rise of crime and, in this particular instance, the death and attacks against police officers. As I just went into a moment ago, Magruder and Arnaud were killed in 2002, over 20 years ago. We know we have been seeing deaths of officers in the line of duty for decades now. It is nothing new. To kind of casually blame it on a slogan that I am not aware of anybody in the body here today who espoused that--certainly, I didn't--to pretend that that is the reason these shootings or these killings are occurring, is, I think, unfortunate and an abuse of what this week is supposed to mean. Now, in addition, I would say this: I just mentioned that I don't know that anybody supports the defund the police slogan from a few years ago, but we do have colleagues in the House right now, a House Republican, who has a bill, H.R. 374, to defund ATF, and we have House Republican colleagues who called for the defunding of the FBI. The irony of that, as those of us who have worked in law enforcement know--I was a prosecutor for 12 years, 4 on the Federal level, 8 as the locally elected State's attorney--the local and Federal prosecutors work together all the time. It is critical. Sometimes they work together in task forces because they can bring the local, the State, and the Federal forces to bear and provide maximum support in protecting our communities. Unfortunately, this piece of legislation and much of the legislation that has been discussed this week that has been offered by my Republican colleagues intentionally ignores Federal law enforcement. In fact, we had one that was marked up in my committee, the Judiciary Committee, where I offered an amendment to include Federal law enforcement. It was expressly rejected on a party-line vote by my Republican colleagues. I have to say that the FBI, ATF, and Border Patrol put their lives on the line, too. We should respect them, as well. One of the reasons I can't support this legislation is that it really is disrespectful to those Federal officers. The other is that, back to the defund police issue, there is a recognition in the legislation where it talks about the number of officers who died in the line of duty in 2021, 2022, and 2023. I can talk about the specific numbers in a moment when we move forward in the debate, but one provision actually notes that 378 law enforcement officers were shot in the line of duty in 2023. The one common thread between the vast majority of officers who have been killed in the line of duty, like Arnaud and Magruder, like the people who were ambushed in Charlotte, like most of the people with the names on the wall just a few blocks away from here, is they were shot. Sadly, my Republican colleagues are unable, unwilling, un-something to take a step to address that gun violence. The resolution here speaks in terms of defunding the police as the cause of their deaths, but all of us know that the greatest threat that these officers face is not being stabbed to death. It is not being beaten to death with a slogan like defund the police. It is being shot to death. Briefly, these are numbers from the cops working with the National Fraternal Order of Police. A total of 331 law enforcement officers were shot in the line of duty during calendar year 2022 in 267 separate shooting incidents, including 42 incidents where multiple officers were shot. I appreciate the fact that we are going to offer resolutions to praise officers, but if we are really serious about protecting them, it is hard to ignore a data point like that. Yet, our officers have to go out there knowing that they face these threats all the time. Traffic stops are particularly dangerous, but sometimes, like for Arnaud and Magruder, officers can be ambushed in a home. Sometimes, like in Charlotte, they can be ambushed in the open air. Taking that seriously, I think, is an important piece, yet the resolution doesn't even mention it. I will say this, and then I will take a pause here for a moment, but there is legislation pending right now in the House of Representatives. I offered one, an assault weapons ban. I figured it might be a bridge too far for me to ask my Republican colleagues to cosponsor that, so I came up with a bill. It is called the Raise the Age Act, and it would elevate the age from 18 to 21 to purchase assault weapons. I thought that would be a reasonable bill to offer because there was already a provision in the law for handguns. You had to be 21 to purchase a handgun. I believe that was put in place during the Reagan era. For my bill, raising it to 21, since you have to be 21 to buy alcohol, I thought it might make sense to be 21 to buy an assault weapon, as well. I think we have 171-plus cosponsors for that bill, but none of them are Republican, not one, even though Republicans had agreed to legislation similar to that in previous years. I will speak to you in a moment about the resources issue, as well. In the 117th Congress, Democrats supported legislation to provide equipment to police officers. We will get into the particular numbers of that in a moment, but none of that is moving forward here in the House now, and none of it is certainly moving forward in Police Week. I want to point out one little factoid from the COPS document that I mentioned before. It is under the heading Bullet Resistant Vests: At least 34 officers were protected from gunshots that struck a protective ballistic vest. Yet, we are struggling to find a way to provide additional support and equipment for officers to help them stay safe on the street. That is what we ought to be doing during Police Week, and to the extent we are going to talk in terms of resolutions in support of officers, let's strip out the political nonsense. The defund the police stuff really has no place in helping to protect police officers and make them safe. As I mentioned a moment ago, it is a slap in the face the way these legislative provisions have been proposed to always exclude Federal law enforcement. I know you guys have issues on the other side about some of them, but I think this isn't the time or the place to express it in that way. Federal law enforcement deserves the same kind of respect, the same kind of appreciation, the same kind of protection that local and State law enforcement officers do. I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. We have had other resolutions that have come through before, and we have urged them to oppose them, as well. I am going to urge my colleagues on the other side after this vote is over--and you are in the majority, so you can move this kind of stuff whether it really makes a difference or not. Hopefully, after we get past this moment, we can actually sit down and get back to the type of legislation that I worked on with Congressman Hunt that can really make a difference to help make police officers safer, to help get more police officers on the street, and to praise all of them for the great work that they do. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I have got to say that I am deeply shocked and offended by the statements that were just made, especially regarding me, but the larger context, too. The gentleman from Minnesota read a quote that he attributed to me, and it is a statement I made, but it was about the killing of Tyre Nichols. Tyre Nichols was the gentleman in Tennessee who was beaten to death over a period of 10 to 15 minutes by I believe it was six police officers. In fact, I remember watching the video, and there were multiple videos because they had different angles. One of the officers who had been beating him got tired and stepped away so he could catch his breath and then came back to continue beating him. I had never seen anything like it. I was shocked. I had cases when I was the State's attorney where police officers used excessive force, and I prosecuted those cases. In some cases, we convicted those individuals. I guess my colleague from Minnesota thought that the beating death of Mr. Nichols was good policing, but keep something in mind. The chief of the police of that department fired those officers because he recognized that that had crossed the line that good police officers recognize and follow every day, under every circumstance, and in every situation. I thought that is what we were going to honor this Police Week. To sort of hold up the Tyre Nichols scenario as an example of what police officers are supposed to be doing during Police Week is insane. I can't believe it, but that is what the gentleman did. Let me say this. It is important for us to make sure that we walk and chew gum at the same time. We want to honor good policing, for sure, because every community needs it. We need police officers who go out and respond to calls for robberies, shootings, or whatever. We need detectives who respond in homicide and rape prosecutions and investigations at the local, State, and Federal levels. We definitely need it, but even they have recognized over time that the bad apples, and the ones in Tyre Nichols' case were clearly not just bad apples but about as bad as you can get, have to be separated out because it is important for the police to police themselves. I know it is hard, but we have to make sure that they do it. The gentleman mentioned body cameras a moment ago. Guess why we have body cameras. That was one of the innovations that was made to address excessive force. Guess what. One of the things that has led to is better policing. When I first ran for State's attorney in Prince George's County, one of the issues I ran on was videotaping interrogations, and I wrote an op-ed. It was titled ``Safeguards for the Innocent.'' I was joined by the former head of the homicide unit here in Washington, D.C. We wrote it together. The reason we wrote it was because we knew that if these investigations were videotaped, it would address the flurry of false confessions that had been made in Prince George's County. We knew they were false because they were proven to be innocent by DNA evidence. We knew they were false confessions, so we made this change to try to address that. Guess what happened. Initially, the police officers opposed it, but the good detectives realized quickly that the videotapes showed the great work that they were doing and that they were going about it the right way. The juries appreciated that, too, because then we could just bring it in, set up the video, play the tape, and the jurors could see for themselves and make their decision. That is good policing. I think it is important for us to make sure that we hold police officers, just like we do prosecutors or any other law enforcement profession, to a basic level of following the law even as they try to protect us from misconduct. I guess this is kind of par for the course now for my Republican colleagues. On the January 6 piece, for example, we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are calling the perpetrators of January 6, the rioters of January 6, hostages and patriots. The majority is calling the people who participated in it patriots, the ones who had been prosecuted, convicted, and jailed. Even though I think over 900 of them pled guilty, others were convicted after jury trials. They have had their day in court. They have had their due process. They were rightly convicted and held accountable. They have been sentenced to jail, but we still have my colleagues on the other side of the aisle calling them patriots and hostages, even though five officers died as a result of January 6 and many others were injured, too. Mr. Speaker, this is Police Week, and I am hoping that we can get back to trying to do things in a bipartisan way here, but based on what I heard from my colleague from Minnesota, that is not likely to happen. It is important to make sure that we do this: We have to make sure that we recognize the challenges we face in law enforcement. I support law enforcement, as I mentioned earlier. We have legislation to try to increase the number of police officers who are going to be out there on the street because we need more police officers on the street. The George Floyd Act, which was referenced, I think, a minute ago, is aimed at making sure that, in addition to having more on the street, they do the job in the right way. When I first got elected, we didn't have iPhones very often. We would prosecute these cases and present the evidence to the jury in excessive force cases, and many times, the jury would reject it. One of the transformations that happened with the iPhone, though, was that people, standing there on the street while excessive force was taking place, videotaped it, and then they were able to bring that to the police. Additionally, cases that probably wouldn't have been charged previously were not only charged but led to convictions. The George Floyd scenario, the person who that legislation is named after, is a paradigm example. Derek Chauvin was there with his knee on George Floyd's neck for 9\1/2\ minutes. The police report that Derek Chauvin and his other colleagues on the street filled out made no mention of all of that, but the videos made it clear that Derek Chauvin had basically just strangled him to death with his knee. He was held accountable, and the other officers around him, who basically did nothing while it was happening, were held accountable, too. Maybe my colleague from Minnesota had that in mind when he made some of the statements he just said a few minutes ago. I sure hope not because officers who do that belong in jail. They shouldn't have a badge, a gun, and a license to kill. That has to be given to the people we can trust to enforce the law in the right way. For the vast majority of police officers, that is how they do it, and that is why we appreciate and respect them. When they cross the line, I hope we don't have people like the gentleman from Minnesota act like that is okay because it is not. We have to hold them accountable. A minute ago, I mentioned serious legislation. It is a little surprising to me that we are having such a debate like this over legislation that is just a resolution basically. It speaks only of defund the police and the like. The Democrats in the last Congress, for example, passed meaningful reforms to support police even though, in many instances, they were opposed by Republicans. Last Police Week, we passed H.R. 6943, the Public Safety Officer Support Act, which extended death benefits to law enforcement officers with PTSD. It happened over the objection of 17 Republicans, including 4 on the Judiciary Committee. Last Police Week, H.R. 2992, the Traumatic Brain Injury and Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder Law Enforcement Training Act, passed, as well. Twenty-one Republicans objected to that also. We keep passing legislation, or we did when the Democrats were in control, to actually provide additional resources and benefits to police officers who get injured in the line of duty. I think that is important for us to continue to do, but our colleagues aren't doing it. Republicans are bringing this political legislation, and it got really political a minute ago when the gentleman from Minnesota was up there, frankly, kind of ranting about things he attributed to me, which I think was wrong and incorrect, but, more importantly, things the gentleman keeps trying to attribute to Democrats and the change in policy. Mr. Speaker, here are a couple of other quick points about some of the things my colleague said, like the decline in police officers. I have to be clear. One of the things we have in the bill I cosponsored with Mr. Hunt was a report that is going to study this because I think it is going to help address a lot of the misinformation that is coming out on the other side about why we are having some shortages. They are saying it is based on the defund the police slogan, but the roots of these shortages started many years ago. In some instances, in some jurisdictions, we just have a cycle of people who are coming up for their retirements at their 20-year and 30-year marks. In any event, let's try to make sure we get the evidence and the data so we can correct those challenges. It is not just fixing a slogan on the street. It is a dangerous job. It doesn't pay as much as it should. Many of the officers or potential officers find that they can have jobs that pay as much but don't have to work as hard. For example, in a Homeland Security Committee hearing, I remember the Border Patrol agents testifying that they are having trouble retaining officers at the border, not because of a defund the police slogan but because they can leave the job and make more money doing other things and stay in the same community, and it is less taxing than being an officer. If we are honest about it, we can come up with better solutions to try to retain them, like maybe paying them more money, but if we keep spreading rhetoric about this is defund the police, we won't fix the problem and get more officers. If money is the issue, and of course it is a factor, then just standing here and haranguing about defunding the police doesn't fix it. We have to find ways to raise the salaries and help attract and retain more of them to go out on the street. I am going to stop with this, for the moment. I first went into law enforcement in 1990 as a prosecutor, and I took it seriously then. The gentleman on the other side is accusing Democrats of not being serious about police. We have former police officers here on this side of the aisle who are Democrats, and I know them across the country. Not only that but every time I have run for office, I have been endorsed by the FOP in my jurisdiction. It is a little unfortunate to sort of use those sorts of attacks to justify the resolution that is proposed here. Let's get serious. Let's get back to doing things that actually will address the problems and retain more police officers, recruit more police officers, and address the concerns that we have with respect to keeping safe on the street. Yes, gun violence is a big factor in the dangers that they face on the streets. I think it is kind of hard to be serious about protecting them if we are not even going to discuss that. My colleague from Virginia mentioned that he thinks we want to make sure that they are 21 because if you wait until they are 21, it undermines their Second Amendment rights. I appreciate that, but I don't agree with that take. Let me say this: Ghost guns, I haven't come across anybody who thinks those make sense. They are intentionally designed to avoid prosecution. They don't have any numbers on them in order to avoid being tracked in the event of use for a criminal enterprise. The use of ghost guns in crimes on the street is exploding. We need to get our Republican colleagues to help us support legislation like that. We are having trouble finding it, but today would be the day. By the way, talking about killings on the street, it is handguns primarily, as I just mentioned a few minutes ago, that are leading to officers' deaths on the streets. If we are really serious about protecting police officers, can't we do something to try to address that? Can't we do something to try to limit the number of guns on the street? Also, I know that the argument is going to be Democrats are soft on crime and all of that, but remember, a lot of the people who commit these crimes don't have prior offenses. The guy who killed the two deputies in my jurisdiction, Arnaud and Magruder, didn't have any prior record. He had mental health issues. We can't just assume that all of these issues revolve around people who have long criminal records because they don't, and many times police officers are killed on the street by people with no prior records. Let's try to address all of these issues in a serious way, in a bipartisan way, because that is the way to actually help keep our police officers safe on the street. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, no Member of Congress questions the difficulty, danger, or stress associated with serving in law enforcement. We are grateful for each and every Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement officer, agent, or employee working daily, putting their lives on the line to keep us safe in every corner and territory of this Nation. This week we should come together to honor their dedication to their jobs and communities, lift up the names of those officers and agents who gave their lives in service, and wrap our arms around their loved ones left behind. Sadly, Republicans have chosen partisanship over bipartisanship at this time. I, therefore, must oppose H. Res. 1213, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.