Glenn Ivey

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I must say that Police Week, when I was a prosecutor at the Federal level and at the State level, was something I looked forward to. I worked closely with police officers, local, State, and Federal. They worked together as brothers and sisters in coordination and cooperation with prosecutors. In many instances, they had task forces where the Federal and local worked together, knowing that that was the way that made them most effective. It was deeply disappointing to see the bills that came through this week that are supposed to be honoring police officers for Police Week. Some of these came through the Judiciary Committee beforehand, which I sit on, and so I raised objections at the time with respect to this legislation, which was ignored. It is with a heavy heart, frankly, that I rise today because, as one of the Republican speakers a few minutes ago noted, I think 370 police officers have been shot. It is clear that one of the greatest dangers police officers face on the street is from guns. The irony is that the legislation that the Republicans have proposed do nothing about guns. In fact, they don't even mention them in most cases, which is really shocking. Now, my colleague from Massachusetts just mentioned a few minutes ago the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, H.R. 715, and he noted that the sponsor of that is a Republican, but he is the only Republican to join this bill. The other 207 cosponsors are all Democrats, and I think that speaks volumes about where the Republicans are these days on this kind of issue. H.R. 2870, the Raise the Age Act, which is aimed at bolstering public safety by raising the age for individuals to buy assault weapons from 18 to 21, is commonsense legislation. It is already 21 for handguns. Why wouldn't we do it for assault weapons? We don't have one Republican cosponsor for that legislation. Another example is H.R. 4992, that goes to ghost guns. The issue about ghost guns is that they are totally untraceable firearms, so they have become the weapon of choice for criminals across the country, blue States, red States, Democratic and Republican jurisdictions alike. There are zero Republican cosponsors for that legislation. It is with great disappointment that we come here today and speak about Police Week, and we ought to be doing things to protect police officers from dangers on the street, but absolutely nothing that is in the legislative package that is being proposed would do that. One last point before I yield back. With respect to the defund language, none of that is pending legislation with respect to police in the Congress right now. The only defund language that I have seen right now is defund ATF and FBI.

Mr. IVEY. Madam Speaker, those are sponsored by Republicans. The defund ATF bill is one sentence long. When I raised the question with the gentleman who proposed it in the committee, I said: How in the world is that supposed to work? How would you defund the entire ATF knowing that we have got gun cases pending there now? I have the same question about the FBI. International prosecutions, cartels, and the like, you would just shut them down like that? That is what those bills would do. Talk about being irresponsible. That is what that proposal is right now. Let's get serious. We are facing major challenges. By the way, crime is going down in cities across the country. You mentioned the 2019 statistics. You stay with 2019 because violent crime has been going down in jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia this year, as well. Let's get serious. Let's focus on doing things that really help protect police officers and make the most out of Police Week.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 546, the Recruit and Retain Act. H.R. 3325, the identical House version of the bill that I am co- leading with Congressman Hunt of Texas, passed the Judiciary Committee last week. The Recruit and Retain Act addresses two key goals that are central to Police Week, recruiting young people who want to become law enforcement officers for the right reasons, and relieving the financial burden of recruiting and retaining law enforcement officers by assisting law enforcement agencies with the costs of the recruitment and application process. The Recruit and Retain Act is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, National Sheriffs' Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, National Association of Police Organizations, Major County Sheriffs of America, and several other organizations. Recruiting and retaining highly trained law enforcement professionals is of the utmost importance. Our ability to attract and develop the best, brightest, and most compassionate and dedicated men and women of diverse backgrounds is vital to the health and well-being of our Nation. Keeping our residents safe and promoting better community relations will lead to safer streets and better policing. We must incentivize hiring and retaining the people who will do the best job of safeguarding our communities through wise use of the most up-to-date law enforcement techniques. For quite some time, law enforcement agencies nationwide have been facing a challenge in their efforts to maintain an appropriately staffed police force. Due in part to changing demographics, they have experienced high rates of resignations and retirements of law enforcement officers. The 2021 Police Executive Research Forum Workforce Survey of law enforcement agencies revealed a 5 percent decrease in the overall hiring rate, an 18 percent increase in resignations, and a 45 percent increase in retirements from responding agencies. The Recruit and Retain Act would establish a new model for the productive recruitment of future law enforcement officers who want to join police forces for the right reasons. Enhancing recruitment of qualified law enforcement officers who are dedicated to the highest principles of policing may also reduce an agency's attrition and resignations over the long term. Through the bill's Pipeline Partnership Program, students will benefit from age-appropriate teachings about the rule of law, the value of law in an ordered society, and the centrality of the law enforcement and judicial systems, including the role that law enforcement officers play in maintaining these values within our society. With age-appropriate introductions to the concepts of law and its importance coming from law enforcement officers and teachers in a friendly setting, some students may choose to join law enforcement, while others may become inspired to pursue careers as lawyers or public servants in other areas of government. An introduction of law enforcement through schools would, in some ways, be similar to a Junior ROTC program for older students who may become interested in law enforcement careers without a contractual commitment. It could increase the number of candidates entering the law enforcement recruitment officer pipeline for desirable reasons. The Pipeline Partnership Program would initially be deployed in a small number of jurisdictions, similar to a pilot program, and its positive outcomes could subsequently encourage other jurisdictions to replicate it. The Recruit and Retain Act will also reduce the administrative costs of recruiting and retaining officers by assisting with the expenses of application fees, such as those for background checks, psychological evaluations, and testing. Funds would be made available to defray the costs of hiring applicants and rehiring officers, taking the burden off of strained law enforcement agencies. Additionally, our bill directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study to better understand the factors that influence recruitment and loss of law enforcement agencies. This study will also recommend practices that will help reduce barriers to addressing these issues. Importantly, the GAO study will assess recruitment, retention, and retirement factors experienced by law enforcement agencies nationwide in communities of all sizes, including those in rural areas which, in some contexts, receive less attention when law enforcement policies are evaluated and developed. To facilitate those initiatives, rather than allocate additional funds, the Recruit and Retain Act would allow jurisdictions that receive COPS grants to utilize funds from those grants for the purposes outlined in the bill, with some limits and restrictions. The bill also includes an annual list of $3 million of COPS grant funds that can be used to connect students with law enforcement officers and agencies through the Pipeline Partnership Program. Although this is a very modest sum, it is sufficient for the creation of this program in a limited number of States and municipalities to test this concept. By implementing these projects in limited locations across the Nation, the Recruit and Retain Act will help States and localities make informed decisions about adopting the program and its law enforcement recruitment procedures. Madam Speaker, I thank, again, Congressman Hunt for his leadership on this legislation. It is for these reasons that I support S. 546, and I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, as well. In closing, Madam Speaker, the Recruit and Retain Act initiatives, taken together, will serve as a de facto pilot project for many localities, large and small, urban and rural, that struggle with law enforcement recruitment and retention. Law enforcement agencies will be able to benefit from each other's experience when replicating initiatives created by this legislation's innovative solutions. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 546, the Recruit and Retain Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As a former prosecutor who handled cases in both Federal and State courts, I worked closely with many law enforcement officers on a day- to-day basis over many years, developing strong relationships with officers who put their lives on the line on a daily basis. In fact, my record and relationships with officers are part of the reasons I have been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police every time I have run for office. That is why, in part, I regret having to rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 106. Traditionally, National Police Week has been recognized as a solemn, unifying occasion. It is a time when Members can come together in a bipartisan fashion to recognize and honor the men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities. However, instead of respecting the dignity of this week, some of my colleagues have decided to move forward with, frankly, political rhetoric in this resolution to satisfy partisan purposes. This resolution amounts to a slap in the face of many Federal law enforcement officers who serve and protect us, as well. Among this resolution's flaws is it completely ignores Federal law enforcement officers who fight crime working infrequently with the local law enforcement officers whom we are discussing here today. Many of them enforce our laws against human trafficking and drug trafficking, including the rapid rise of fentanyl, the massive flow of firearms, including ghost guns, that illegally enter our country and communities and endanger all of us. To offer a resolution that fails to honor Federal law enforcement officers as well is just plain wrong. I made this objection in the committee when we were having a hearing on a related bill a few weeks ago, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to my colleagues. However, in recent years, Republicans have consistently blamed the rise in violent crime on Democrats and attempted to pin the ``defend the police'' rhetoric on Democrats labeling Democrats as the party to defund the police. Yet, a Republican colleague of ours introduced H.R. 374, the Abolish the ATF Act, a one-line bill that would do away with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He also threatened to ``defund,'' ``get rid of,'' or ``abolish'' other Federal agencies, including the FBI, CDC, and DOJ, ``if they do not come to heel.'' Another one of my Republican colleagues called for defunding the FBI, as well, and we have multiple Republican colleagues who have made similar kinds of calls to defund Federal law enforcement, even though I think all of us recognize how critical they are to protecting the United States and handling matters in conjunction with local law enforcement authorities or, in some instances, where local law enforcement authorities don't have the jurisdiction or the authority to handle a matter. H. Con. Res. 106 endeavors to continue those efforts, unfortunately, repeating the verbatim attacks, as we heard just a moment ago, on Federal law enforcement and the Democrats, sentiments that were asserted in a different context in H. Con. Res. 40 last year, when the Democrats offered legislation for National Police Week. This resolution claims that the defund the police movement vilifies and demonizes local law enforcement, putting them at greater risk of danger, while ignoring the Republicans' own efforts to defund law enforcement, whether by opposing grant funding that sometimes supports State and local agencies or by calling to abolish Federal agencies, as I just mentioned a moment ago. We should be reminded that, through the American Rescue Plan, Democrats have provided the largest Federal investment in public safety in the Nation's history. $350 billion has allowed cities across the country to keep law enforcement officers on the beat and communities safer from violence. Police departments have used this funding to establish training facilities, hire more officers, and raise salaries. Rather than playing at partisanship, like we are today, in the 117th Congress, House Democrats passed priority policing bills that extended death benefits to law enforcement officers with PTSD, provided funding to law enforcement and other first responders to improve interactions with civilians, authorized $300 million in grants for law enforcement agencies with fewer than 125 officers, made significant investments in deescalation training, and provided $100 million per year in grants to solve cold-case violent crimes, all over Republican objections. More disappointingly, this resolution before us today continues the Republican record of devaluing the lives and contributions of the 137,000 Federal agents and officers serving in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, including the Capitol Police, who we all should recall protect us here on a daily basis. Although H. Con. Res. 106 does not demonize specific Democratic Members or so-called leftist activists who support efforts to defund or reallocate funding for local law enforcement agencies, as H. Con. Res. 40 did last year, this resolution is similarly a missed opportunity to truly support law enforcement officers across the country and is designed, once again, to falsely paint Democrats as opponents of law enforcement. Madam Speaker, it is for these reasons that I oppose H. Con. Res. 106, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Let's restore the dignity of Police Week by advancing truly bipartisan acclamations and support for law enforcement efforts. Madam Speaker, in 2002, President George W. Bush proclaimed that Police Officers Memorial Day and Police Week pay tribute to the local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers who serve and protect us with courage and dedication. Since its inception, National Police Week has been meant to bring Members of Congress together, no matter their political affiliation, to acknowledge the contributions of all law enforcement professionals and honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while in the line of duty. Whether State, local, Tribal, or Federal, we are grateful for the service of all officers, agents, and support staff who work tirelessly to protect us and keep us safe. We should be able to make that clear today. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for organizing this Special Order hour. I also join with the comments that have already been made with respect to condolences to the families of the six lives that were lost. I remember, when I heard about it that morning, there were eight, I think, missing initially. I remember praying at that time that they would survive. Even though the emergency services made immediate efforts to try and save them and blocked off the road so that no other people were going to meet that fate, I know that we have lost six at this point. It is a sad moment, a tragic evening, and we certainly want to extend our condolences to their families and their communities. Gustavo Torres and some of the other leaders and officials in those communities recognize the impact that was had, and we certainly want to tell them that we support them and we are going to work hard to help them make it through this tragedy in every way that we can. I also want to commend Governor Moore who has been outstanding in the way he has handled this event. The leadership he has provided has been quite impressive. He has really risen to the occasion. I knew he was a talented leader, but he has demonstrated that repeatedly during this time. I thank the Biden administration, too, for taking immediate steps. The President himself came out I think that same day and made the commitment to make sure that the bridge got rebuilt, that the Federal Government was going to make 100 percent efforts to cover those costs, and that he was going to do everything in his power to make sure that that happened quickly, that we weren't going to wait for the litigation to take place. I think the last time there was a bridge collapse, the litigation took 10 years to resolve. Thank goodness he has decided to move it forward immediately because we need that money now. We need to rebuild it. You have heard about the economic impact on the region. I think that is certainly the case, so making initial and quick steps to make that recovery happen, I think, is critical. I did want to say this, too. That morning, I got calls from reporters about the tragedy, and some were asking for initial responses. Some also asked me about comments that people had made with respect to the collapse of the bridge. One candidate for Congress said DEI did this, and he called Mayor Brandon Scott ``the DEI mayor.'' One rightwing provocateur said foreign agents of the United States attacked digital infrastructures. Another individual said: Looks deliberate to me. A cyberattack is probable. World war III has already started. Lastly, a Utah State Representative said: This is what happens when you have Governors who prioritize diversity over the well-being and security of our citizens. I told that reporter then, and I want to say it on the House floor now, that I thought those comments were disgusting and irresponsible. I thought it was a sad moment. I know we are having very partisan times here in the United States, and certainly here in the House, but I think this is a moment where we need to rise above that. I thank my Republican colleagues who just did that and are doing that just now. Andy Harris stood with us. Congressman Andy Harris stood with us yesterday. We had a press conference where we had the Biden administration present, the Governor present, and the House and Senate delegation from Maryland were all present. He was there, too, and voiced his support for full recovery of the bridge. I say this just to end. The voices that I just mentioned a moment ago, those were not the representative voices of my colleagues here in Congress. I think they understand that this is not about red States or blue States. This is a moment where this is about the United States of America. It is times like this where we have to turn to each other and not on each other so we can rise above the tragedy and move forward together. I know we can do better. I know we will continue to do better, and I want to commend all of those who have done better so far with this effort.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7511, the House Republicans' unconstitutional attempt to violate the separation of powers doctrine. While I take issue with many aspects of this bill, I am particularly concerned that this bill is a blatant effort to overturn the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling in United States v. Texas and wrongly blame the Biden administration for three decades of border enforcement challenges. In the Texas case, States sued the Department of Homeland Security about border enforcement. Justice Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, writing for the 8-1 majority, stated that Texas did not have standing in its lawsuit against the Federal Government. He wrote: The threshold question is whether the States have standing under Article III to maintain this suit. The answer is no. This bill does not change the Supreme Court's clear ruling. Determining whether States can bring suit in this type of immigration case is a power that is vested in the Federal courts, not Congress. Justice Kavanaugh also made clear that the discretion to arrest and detain aliens is a power granted to the executive branch and that: Executive branch does not possess the resources necessary to arrest or remove all of the noncitizens covered by the Federal immigration laws. That reality is not an anomaly. It is a constant. Kavanaugh noted, in addition, that: ``For the last 27 years . . . all five Presidential administrations have determined that resource constraints necessitated prioritization in making immigration arrests.'' That means DHS cannot detain everybody, so the executive branch, not the States, have to make choices. Unfortunately, this bill would not give DHS the resources to change that. Instead, House Republicans rely on political stunts, like impeaching Secretary Mayorkas, even though that won't fix the problem at the border. The bipartisan Senate bill that House Republicans refuse to even debate actually would help to address these problems, but the majority won't bring that bill to the floor for a vote. If the Republicans did, it would pass. That is because we all know we need more border agents and more judges to eliminate the backlog of immigration cases. However, the Republicans are not proposing more resources or any legislation that might truly make a difference. This bill was not a serious attempt to address the actual border security needs and, as such, I would urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5969, the Improving Travel for Families Act. I am proud to cosponsor this bipartisan legislation with my friend and Homeland Security Committee colleague from Texas, Representative Morgan Luttrell. This bill aims to make the CBP Global Entry program more friendly for family travel at our international airports by allowing children ages 10 or under to accompany their parent or guardian through Global Entry when clearing customs in the United States. The bill also makes it possible for parents to schedule interviews for Global Entry for their kids as a group. It will do all of this without risking the security of children, as Global Entry approval requires multiple steps, including a background check. As a father of six, I know how difficult the logistics can be for families traveling with young children. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan legislation that will make travel more friendly for families without compromising security.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4984, the D.C. Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act. Like other members of the Maryland delegation, I believe Prince George's County and Maryland should be able to compete on a level playing field to keep the Washington Commanders, but this bill would give an unfair advantage to D.C. It is most certainly not a level playing field when one interested jurisdiction receives a free transfer of Federal Government-subsidized land. I am not opposed to D.C. bidding to be the new home of the Washington Commanders, but its pursuit of the Commanders should be no different than its efforts to compete with Virginia for the Wizards and Capitals. This is also a bad deal for Federal taxpayers. This bill transfers control over Federal Government property at no apparent cost to the District of Columbia so that private ownership can build a football stadium. This is not a District of Columbia home rule issue. This is no different than any other city or State competing for a sports franchise or stadium, no different than the State of New Jersey competing with the State of New York for the Jets or the Giants. I also do not object to the redevelopment or renovation of the current RFK campus. I think it would be outstanding to have new housing, retail use, and park space there. As a matter of fact, I live near the stadium and drive by it every day, but I do not believe a cost-free land transfer largely for stadium purposes provides the best opportunity to achieve these goals. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, as we recognize National Entrepreneurship Week and Black History Month, I rise today to highlight the accomplishments and challenges of America's Black-owned small businesses. Black business ownership is growing at the fastest pace in 30 years with the share of Black households owning a business doubling between 2019 and 2022. However, Black-owned small businesses still face distinct challenges, particularly as it relates to accessing capital, securing contracts, and navigating systemic biases within financial institutions and markets. Limited access to funding restricts the ability to scale and compete on an equal footing with their counterparts, hindering their potential for long-term success and growth. Due to limited credit access, higher shares of Black employer businesses are forced to turn to alternative forms of financing. According to the Alliance for Entrepreneurial Equity, 49 percent of firms who pursue financing at an online lender do so because they were denied by other financial institutions. One of my constituents who has faced these types of challenges is Tiffany Kelly, the owner and founder of House of Ketubah Bridal in Mount Rainier, Maryland. Tiffany told me that her business has been overlooked and excluded from financing opportunities. But she hasn't abandoned hope. Tiffany and her team continue to explore alternative avenues and innovative solutions to ensure that they can continue to serve their customers and the community. I urge my colleagues to work together to solve the access to capital challenges faced by small businesses and to consider the unique needs of minority-owned businesses during Black History Month.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative for yielding and allowing me to participate in celebrating Black History Month. Mr. Speaker, this week, I will be introducing the Frederick Douglass Congressional Gold Medal Act, which would honor Frederick Douglass with a long overdue expression of appreciation and celebrate his legacy with a Congressional Gold Medal. I am proud to offer this bipartisan legislation with my colleague, Congressman Andy Harris, whose district includes the historic birthplace of Mr. Douglass. Mr. Speaker, nearly 130 years since his passing, Frederick Douglass' remarkable life remains a beacon of inspiration to all Americans. Born into slavery on Maryland's Eastern Shore, Mr. Douglass overcame countless obstacles to become one of the most powerful and impactful figures in 19th century America. Douglass was enslaved for the first two decades of his life. During this period, he taught himself to read and write, skills which would later play a critical role in his life as an abolitionist and civil rights leader. In his twenties, Douglass escaped slavery, first to New York and then eventually settling in Massachusetts. Douglass dedicated the remainder of his life to furthering the cause of freedom for others in America. Beginning in the 1840s, Douglass became active in the abolitionist movement, often utilizing his profound oratory and writing skills to captivate and inform his audiences. As a writer and publisher, Frederick Douglass used the power of his written works to document the cruelty of slavery and push for abolition. He was the publisher of The North Star, a newspaper that he authored, and multiple autobiographies in which he shared the brutality of his enslavement in Maryland. Douglass exposed the oppression of enslaved Americans, speaking powerfully at abolition conventions and meetings with civic leaders. In 1852, Douglass delivered his famous Fourth of July address in Rochester, New York. In his speech, Douglass asked the question: What to the slave is the Fourth of July? While commending the ideals of the Founding Fathers, he also noted the hypocrisy of such ideals in relation to the treatment of enslaved Americans as he had been. Perhaps some of Douglass' most impactful achievements came as our Nation was torn apart by the Civil War. Douglass was a key advocate in ensuring that the Civil War brought about the end of slavery in the United States. As the war began, Douglass recruited African-American men to join the Union Army, including his own sons. After the war, he fought for equal pay and equal treatment for African-American soldiers. This advocacy included several meetings with President Abraham Lincoln at the White House, to whom Douglass became a trusted confidant. After the war, Douglass continued his work as a dedicated fighter for equality and the extension of the rights of the U.S. Constitution to all Americans. He was a prominent and powerful advocate for the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. One of his most powerful postwar moments came in 1876 at the dedication of the Emancipation Memorial here in Lincoln Park in Washington, D.C., where Douglass delivered the keynote address. Later in his life, Douglass was also a public servant. He was appointed to several influential government posts, including U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia, Recorder of Deeds, and Minister to Haiti. Frederick Douglass dedicated his life to furthering the cause of freedom in the United States. Few Americans have shaped our Nation so profoundly and permanently as Frederick Douglass. To this very day, Douglass' message and principles remain a guiding light for our country as we continue to seek fulfillment of our Nation's promise and potential for justice and equality. Although the immeasurable impact of Frederick Douglass elevated him to the pantheon of some of the greatest Americans, he has never received a proper, official commendation from Congress for his contributions to our Nation. If awarded, Douglass' medal would be displayed at the National Museum of African American History and Culture right here in Washington, D.C., where Americans can view the medal and learn more about Douglass' legacy. It is long past time for Congress to bestow this honor upon an American whose indelible impact is still felt today and will continue to be felt for generations to come. Therefore, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Not even a week after my Republican colleagues failed to advance their unconstitutional impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas, House Republicans again put critical House business on hold while they wasted precious time on another meaningless impeachment vote. Mr. Speaker, the list of things this House majority has ignored is long and only getting longer. House Republicans have failed to pass the key bills needed to avoid a government shutdown in March. Congress still needs to reauthorize the FAA bill to improve air travel and safety. We need to reauthorize FISA to bolster our national security. House Republicans need to provide critical military aid to our allies in Ukraine and Israel, and the civilians in Gaza and Ukraine need lifesaving humanitarian aid as soon as possible. House Republicans can't pass or haven't passed any of these critical bills. I am calling on my House Republican colleagues to get serious and to let us get back to doing the work the American people need us to get done.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. The power to impeach is one of the greatest constitutional powers granted to the House of Representatives. This awesome responsibility should be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors. Nonetheless, House Republicans have decided to abuse that responsibility for a cheap political stunt. House Republicans have not alleged an impeachable offense. Policy disagreements are not impeachable. Even if you strongly believe border security should be improved, Madam Speaker, that does not provide grounds to remove a Cabinet official. That is why former Republican Secretary Michael Chertoff said that Mayorkas hasn't committed an impeachable offense. Even law professor Jonathan Turley has said that Secretary Mayorkas' alleged actions are not impeachable and fail to amount to high crimes and misdemeanors warranting his impeachment. Republicans offered no constitutional scholars as witnesses during their two impeachment hearings, but rather relied on Republican States attorneys general's testimony, one of which didn't even mention the word ``impeachment'' in his prepared statements.

Mr. IVEY. This unconstitutional impeachment process has been predetermined and unjust since it began. It will lower the constitutional bar for future impeachments, and it will not make our border more secure. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are here today to consider H.R. 3224, the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Extension Act of 2023. I commend my Republican colleague from New York for introducing this legislation. The CWMD Office within the Department of Homeland Security plays a pivotal role in safeguarding our Nation's security by addressing the threat of weapons capable of causing harm to our communities and infrastructure. CWMD improves our Nation's capability to plan for, detect, and guard against chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and health security threats, otherwise known as CBRN. CWMD further enables CBRN detection programs, training, and other capabilities for State, local, Tribal, and territorial partners and provides ground support for national special security events such as Presidential inaugurations and major sporting events. Without the support of dedicated DHS components like CWMD, terrorists could exploit the absence of comprehensive measures. It could leave the Nation vulnerable to catastrophic attacks with the potential for widespread harm, loss of life, and severe disruption to national security and public safety. CWMD operates important programs such as Securing the Cities, which provides 14 local governments across the country with detection equipment, training, exercise support, operational and technical subject matter expertise, and programmatic support. When CWMD was authorized in 2018, Congress included a sunset for December 21, 2023, with the idea that we could closely monitor the progress of the office. The last continuing resolution extended CWMD through February 2, 2024, but the office needs a longer extension to ensure that its programs and staff have continuity. With the sunset quickly approaching, the Committee on Homeland Security has worked in a bipartisan fashion to extend CWMD by 2 years with H.R. 3224. This bipartisan bill will also provide a report to Congress regarding a CWMD employee engagement action plan and strategy to improve morale within the office, which is important given that there have been significant workforce and morale issues. CWMD is consistently ranked low in morale, according to a survey done by the Best Places to Work in the Federal Government. The bill further requires the Government Accountability Office to brief Congress regarding CWMD and how it is carrying out its mission. While Congress will continue to provide oversight of CWMD and, in the future, provide a permanent authorization for the office, passage of H.R. 3224 is a positive step. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3224, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter), the ranking member of the Emergency Management and Technology Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security and an original cosponsor of this measure.

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3224 is crucial for sustaining our Nation's capabilities to counter chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. The expertise provided by CWMD is essential in the fight against weapons of mass destruction. Passage of this legislation is vital to maintaining our preparedness and ensuring the security of the Nation against the evolving challenges posed by bad actors. Mr. Speaker, I urge my House colleagues to support H.R. 3224, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this solemn occasion to urge my colleagues to take the rare step of exercising the expulsion clause of the United States Constitution. Congressman George Santos has failed to uphold the principles of scrupulous, selfless public service. He has violated the law and he has violated this body's ethics rules. As a member of the Ethics Committee, I can report that the evidence against him is substantial and damning. I can also report that there was no rush to judgment. During the course of our investigation, the Ethics Committee authorized 37 subpoenas, issued 43 requests for information, obtained and reviewed over 172,000 pages of documents, interviewed over 40 witnesses, and reviewed relevant public information, including the Federal indictments in the criminal case in New York. Our bipartisan investigation revealed that he laundered $50,000 of his campaign donors' money through two personal accounts and spent it on himself on designer clothes, a car payment, a credit card, and personal debts. He cheated the government out of $24,000 in unemployment benefits during the pandemic when he was earning a salary of $120,000 from an investment firm. He lied and said he loaned his unsuccessful campaign for Congress over $80,000, and repaid himself for the fictitious loan, netting a personal profit of $27,000. In the second--this time successful campaign for Congress--he lied again, this time to the tune of $500,000. He also transferred and hid from the FEC a sum of $50,000 from his congressional campaign to his State Political Action Committee. He spent over $40,000 of campaign funds on personal expenses, like expensive travel and meals, casino stays, an adult website, and cosmetic procedures, personally enriching himself at his donors' expense--all of this on top of his constant lying about his resume and his family history. There are charges of fraud, identity theft, credit card skimming, and swindling a disabled veteran. In short, the evidence of criminal and ethical violations is extensive and overwhelming. Mr. Santos has complained that he has not received due process. He also suggested that he was unaware of the fraud and misconduct, apparently trying to shift the blame to his treasurer and others. Mr. Santos worked closely with his treasurer, who pled guilty just last month to her role in this scheme. The text messages they exchanged about the fake loans show that he was a knowing and active participant in the misconduct. The campaign staffers we interviewed as part of our investigation also made clear that he was certainly aware of the campaign's financial abuses. In addition, his campaign consultants gave him a 141-page vulnerability report that detailed many of his frauds and lies. They demanded that he drop out of the race. When he refused--just like he is doing today--three of his staffers quit in protest. The Ethics Committee also offered Mr. Santos a chance to meet with us for an interview or deposition to explain his side. He has done countless interviews and gave a press conference just a few feet from here earlier this morning, but somehow he never found time to meet with us. Somehow he never even tried to offer a plausible explanation for his conduct. In fact, all he said today was that he would address our report at a later time. He said something over the weekend that stuck with me. He said he would wear expulsion as a badge of honor. When all this is over, I am afraid he won't be wearing a badge of honor, he will be wearing an orange jumpsuit. This is a historic moment. The House has only expelled five Members in our entire history. The Constitution is clear that we don't have to wait until Mr. Santos is remanded to the Bureau of Prisons before we can vote to expel him from the House of Representatives. The Constitution is also clear in the safeguards it provides to ensure that the power to expel a duly elected Member was not abused. The Framers--in their wisdom--set the high bar of a two-thirds vote. Unlike some of the rushed motions to censure that we have seen here on this floor just in the past year, Mr. Santos received a full and extensive investigation, and a detailed report from the Ethics Committee. The evidence of criminal and ethical misconduct is extensive, overwhelming, and undisputed. Finally, the Ethics Committee's investigation and report was bipartisan, and its findings were unanimous. Given all of these safeguards and all of this evidence, now is the time to hold Mr. Santos accountable. Now is the time to show the American people that we can hold ourselves to at least a minimal standard of conduct. Now is the time to vote to expel George Santos from the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Perry amendment. This amendment would cut $150 million in Federal capital funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. The Perry amendment would undermine a successful Federal-State-local partnership which provides Metro with $150 million in Federal funding for urgent capital projects. This funding is matched 100 percent with $150 million from Metro compact members, Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. The $300 million annual investment is critical to improving the safety and reliability of the system. Continued bipartisan support for America's transit agency will ensure WMATA progress on restoring aging infrastructure and maintaining a safe and reliable system for visitors from across the United States. This annual capital funding program was created by Republican Congressman Tom Davis as part of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. This program has received broad bipartisan support for more than a decade, and the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act reauthorized the program until 2030. Funding for the Federal Government's FY 2024 contribution to Metro is included in this bill on the House floor this week and was in the T-HUD bill that recently passed the Senate by a vote of 82-15. The funding enjoys such consistent and longstanding support in Congress because the Federal Government is both a stakeholder in the system and a chief beneficiary of this annual capital funding contribution. Metro is a $40 billion asset to the national capital region and is essential to the operation of the Federal Government. More than one- third of all Metro stations are located on Federal property serving Federal facilities. Unlike other transportation networks in the Nation, the Metro system serves a distinct vital national security role for the Federal Government, providing transportation to the Pentagon, Homeland Security, and the FBI offices. Metro transports thousands of Federal employees to work each day, and that number is increasing as Metro helps Federal agencies increase in-person work. Metro recently saw its highest rate of Federal employee ridership since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the services and accomplishments of James Hairston III and Trina Hairston, the Lead Pastors of All Nations Worship Assembly Washington, D.C. Both natives of Bridgeport, Connecticut came to being the Lead Pastors in January of 2019 of All Nations Worship Assembly Washington, D.C. At the start of launching, they hosted live-streaming Bible Study sessions and live worship services called ``Preaching to the Choir'' to draw the local community closer to God. Within the last four years, they have built a culture of outreach, discipleship, and fellowship for the local Prince George's County communities. As Lead Pastors, they have purposed in their heart to cultivate the community through love, prayer, and teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We recognize that Pastors James Hairston III and Trina Hairston as a force within the Prince George's County community. Their passion has been powerful by spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ through prayer, love, outreach, discipleship, and fellowship into the lives of underserved and disadvantaged communities. Their commitment to God has both led Pastor James Hairston III and Trina Hairston to be great faith-based pillar within Prince George's County. On behalf of Maryland 4th Congressional District, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Lead Pastors James Hairston III and Trina Hairston for their exemplary accomplishments, dedication to public service, and trailblazing leadership.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the Republicans have skipped town. They are leaving behind a ransom note on the full faith and credit of the United States. One Republican Congressman said: ``My conservative colleagues don't feel like we should negotiate with our hostage,'' but the real hostages are American seniors, veterans, and working families. Donald Trump said: ``If they don't give you massive cuts, you are going to have to do a default,'' but that is not what he said back in 2019. Back then, he said the debt ceiling was, ``a very sacred thing in our country that we can never play with.'' He was right then. Instead of cutting costs on the backs of working people, we should require billionaires and corporations to pay their fair share, but Republicans in Congress would rather put veterans' healthcare on the chopping block. Most Americans, most Republicans, don't support that. Let's get serious and get back to work.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I will support legislation that fairly and appropriately addresses the serious shortcomings in our country's immigration laws, but, unfortunately, H.R. 2 is not that bill. H.R. 2 is a false promise to the extreme Republican base. The Senate has already made it clear that this bill is dead on arrival. But even if the bill somehow passed, it does not provide funding to build a wall, nor hire more Border Patrol officers, nor retain those we already have. A cornerstone of H.R. 2, and its first major provision, is a return to Donald Trump's quest to build a wall along our southern border. But the Republican bill doesn't even provide the money to pay for it. The bill calls for a wall that is at least 900 miles long, but it would not stop the flow of fentanyl. The Sinaloa cartel in Mexico routinely drives by the wall that is already there, flies over the wall, and tunnels underneath it, as we learned during the DOJ takedown of the Sinaloa cartel a few weeks ago. The wall would also be a financial disaster. H.R. 2 presumes that the wall would be funded with unspent money that has been allocated for the wall. But former President Trump siphoned away much of the unspent funds for the wall from other departments and the programs for those funds were eventually returned to them. According to the CBO's analysis, another 160 miles of the wall would have to be built to reach the 900-mile mandate that is in the bill. In estimating these costs, CBO wrote: ``CBO estimates an average cost per mile of $25 million. . . . CBO expects that previously appropriated amounts could cover the cost of 80 miles of construction; thus, CBP would need an additional $2 billion to complete the other 80 miles.'' On top of that, the Republicans just announced that they proposed a 22 percent cut across the board for much of the government, including DHS. In March, I joined my colleagues on a visit to the southern border. We met with Customs and Border Patrol officers. The border officers were unanimous in the need for more resources, more agents, and more technology. We took their comments to heart. During the markup, Democrats sought to provide more immigration judges, more processing centers that combined Federal, State, and local resources, but those amendments were also voted down by Republicans. Democrats also sought to ensure that Border Patrol officers were paid according to the established civil pay scale; expand technology to x- ray trucks at the border, where over 90 percent of the fentanyl enters the United States; boost the quantity and quality of drones used by our officers to cut the cartel's 17-1 advantage in drones they now use to traffic drugs and other contraband; and add 1,700 Border Patrol officers to manage the border and intercept the flow of illegal drugs, such as fentanyl. But all of these amendments were rejected by our Republican colleagues. Worse still, the Republican bill prohibits NGOs, like the American Red Cross and The Salvation Army, from providing essential goods and services to migrants who desperately need them.

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, this is why many groups have written letters of opposition to H.R. 2, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the AFL-CIO, Catholic Charities, and 136 humanitarian aid organizations who signed a joint letter of opposition. For example, the bishop of El Paso and the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration wrote: ``As drafted, these provisions could even be interpreted to prevent schools, houses of worship, and other organizations from qualifying for the Nonprofit Security Grant program amid a rise in violent attacks on those places.'' The bishop also noted that DHS's ability to rescue persons encountered in the desert in life-threatening circumstances and process unaccompanied children, victims of trafficking, victims of torture, and others, who even under this bill's terms would warrant such processing, could be precluded. Mr. Speaker, for these and many other reasons, I thoroughly oppose H.R. 2.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Raise the Age Act. This bill would protect the public by raising the minimum age to purchase semiautomatic centerfire rifles to 21 years old. Currently, the buyer only needs to be 18 years old, even though the minimum age to purchase a handgun from a dealer with a Federal license is 21 years old. The Raise the Age Act would apply the 21-year-old minimum age standard to buyers of semiautomatic centerfire rifles just as it applies to buyers of handguns. Imagine the agony that Alexandria Rubio's parents felt last May when they learned that their 10-year-old daughter's life was cut short at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. On that horrific day, 21 beautiful spirits were stolen from us: 19 precious young children and 2 beloved, dedicated teachers. The halls of the grade school were forever robbed of their innocence due to the gruesome actions committed by an 18-year-old who used a semiautomatic weapon that he purchased shortly after his 18th birthday. On May 14th, 2022, 53-year-old Andre Mackneil went to the Tops grocery store in Buffalo, New York, to purchase a birthday cake for his grandson. He never returned home for his grandson's birthday due to the heinous acts of an 18-year-old mass shooter with an assault weapon. That 18-year-old ended the lives of 10 innocent souls that day. Had a 21-year-old age requirement been in place, that 18-year-old shooter would not have been able to legally purchase that firearm just a few months earlier and the tragedy and trauma that occurred that day might have been avoided. Some of the most horrific and heartbreaking mass shootings in our history were committed by 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds using assault weapons, including the massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012; at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018; and at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999. According to CNN, in November of 2022, up to that point, at least 3,179 people had been shot in mass shootings, resulting in 637 deaths and more than 2,500 people wounded. Already in 2023, there have been more than 170 mass shootings. Some of my colleagues insist on choosing the Second Amendment over second graders. They insist on banning books in schools instead of banning assault weapons in schools. They talk about the weaponization of our government, but they are silent when actual weapons are used to lay waste to our schoolchildren. Instead of supporting commonsense reforms to address our country's gun epidemic, some Members offer bills that would make the problem even worse, such as eliminating the ATF, the lead Federal law enforcement agency that fights against gun violence. Time and time again, our communities are devastated by these mass killings. Some politicians send thoughts and prayers, but we should all remember the wisdom in Paul's letter to James: ``Faith without works is dead.'' This bill alone won't fix the problem of gun violence, but we know that inaction will not stop the mass killings. The time for action is long overdue. That is why this bill is supported by many gun violence prevention organizations, including the Giffords Law Center, which observes its 10th anniversary today, March for Our Lives, Newtown Action Alliance, Community Justice Action Fund, and several others. Some major retail chains like Walmart have even voluntarily raised the age from 18 to 21 to buy a firearm at their stores. Raising the age to 21 also withstood judicial scrutiny recently. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a similar law on the 21- year-old age requirement in Florida that was enacted shortly after the 2018 massacres in Parkland, Florida. The Court determined that the act's restrictions on the sale of firearms to 18- to 20-year-olds ``is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.'' Raising the age to 21 to purchase these kinds of firearms is reasonable and a crucial step, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this vital legislation.

Mr. IVEY

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Judge Shiela R. Tillerson Adams and her well-earned retirement after 12 years of working as the Chief and Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County and the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Maryland. The achievements of Judge Tillerson Adams are historic. As the first African-American woman appointed to the District Court of Maryland, she blazed a trail, not just for women in Prince George's County but for us all. Three years later, she was elevated to the Circuit Court, where she served with distinction until another much-deserved promotion in 2010 made her the Chief and Administrative Judge for the Circuit Court. At every step, her service was guided by a noble mission: ``The Circuit Court Welcomes All--A Forum for Justice.'' Her commitment to that ethos never wavered. Throughout her tenure, she was a pioneer who expanded problem-solving courts to help people struggling with substance abuse, truancy, or reentry into society after incarceration. She worked to expand opportunities for veterans and diversion programs for juveniles, and she did it all with a sense of grace and compassion that is unmatched. She cares about people, through and through. She leaves a legacy that will reverberate in our community for generations. It is with great pride that I recognize her accomplishments, and wish her a happy retirement after her storied judicial career.