Stephen Lynch

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me first of all thank Chairman Hill for his kind remarks and his astute observations on the circumstances that have brought us to this point. I will add that I believe this morning it was announced that JPMorganChase, which was the benefactor of this previous transaction, is now approaching $5 trillion in assets. That is indeed remarkable. Their market cap is about a trillion dollars, as well. I think this legislation does point to that loophole that allows megabanks to acquire failing banks even when other eligible, well- managed small and midsize banks have submitted competing bids improving community and regional bank competitiveness and preventing further consolidation among our largest financial institutions. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6556, the Failing Bank Acquisition Fairness Act, which I introduced in December 2025. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), our ranking member, who advanced this legislation unanimously within the committee. Specifically, the Failing Bank Acquisition Fairness Act will prevent megabanks from dominating the bidding process for acquiring a failed bank if there are other eligible bids from well-capitalized and well- managed small and midsized banks. In the three decades since 1994, the number of commercial banks has declined in this country by approximately 50 percent, hollowing out the small and midsized institutions that have traditionally housed local community capital. Small to midsized banks are unable to compete with the larger institutions in the failed bank acquisition process, even when attainable opportunities arise which might result in a more favorable result for depositors and impacted businesses and communities. For example, after the collapse of the First Republic Bank, Silicon Valley Bank, and Signature Bank in 2023, which were the second, third, and fourth largest bank failures in U.S. history, as part of the resolution process, Federal regulators, including the FDIC, structured an immensely favorable acquisition process to allow JPMorganChase, America's biggest bank at the time, to acquire the nearly $230 billion in assets and $103 billion in deposits from the failed First Republic Bank. Multiple midsized banks sought to acquire First Republic Bank but failed to compete with J.P. Morgan's sheer asset holdings, estimated to be close to $4 trillion. As part of that deal, the FDIC also entered into a comprehensive loss sharing agreement with JPMorganChase to incentivize that purchase. In fact, the FDIC agreed to absorb 80 percent of all credit losses. After effectively winning the government auction, J.P. Morgan quickly announced plans to shut down one quarter of First Republic's 84 branches rather than preserving consumer access to their local branches. The closure also led to the firing of approximately 1,000 bank employees. Acquisitions such as these are now the norm rather than the exception. This year, U.S. bank mergers and acquisitions have hit a 7- year high, up 45 percent since 2024. Consumer advocacy organizations such as Americans for Financial Reform and Better Markets have raised serious concerns about the advantages afforded to large interconnected financial institutions like JPMorganChase in bidding for these failing banks, and as a result growing ever larger while accelerating the process of consolidation. To that end, I introduced this legislation, the Failing Bank Acquisition Fairness Act, which if it were law at the time would have created a more level playing field between healthy medium-sized as well as larger banks to both stabilize markets but also to better serve depositors, businesses, and the impacted communities in which those banks are located while avoiding megabanks gobbling up smaller banks in the steady march toward consolidation. Megabanks should not be allowed to take advantage of financial crises to increase their domination and pad their own profits. This legislation would take an important step toward increasing competition and improving the resilience of our financial system from economic shocks. I am proud that this bill was passed unanimously in committee by every Democrat, every Republican, and has the support of Americans for Financial Reform to boot. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mrs. McClain and Mr. Garcia for their good work. The administration has already ceased penny production, but this legislation does the necessary work of providing meaningful guidance for consumers and businesses across the country. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3074, the Common Cents Act, sponsored by Representative McClain. I thank Representative McClain, along with Representative Robert Garcia, for their work on this legislation. The idea to end penny production is not a new one. In fact, other countries, like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, have stopped producing pennies themselves. However, many of these countries executed this plan through a deliberate and meaningful process. Unlike the approach taken by other countries, in February 2025, President Donald Trump abruptly announced on his Truth Social media account that he directed the Treasury to stop minting pennies. This decision, not surprisingly, ignored the critical role and constitutional authority of Congress in regulating the currency. While the Secretary of the Treasury did carry out President Trump's orders, the administration failed to provide a strategic plan or guidance for the public on how to handle this change, which would impact all segments of the economy. This sudden decision is emblematic of how the administration carries out policy. They do it suddenly, without expert engagement, without feedback, and without consideration of potential harms. For these reasons, I was glad to see that Ranking Member Waters, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), Representative McClain, and Representative Garcia worked together for over a year to thoughtfully provide much-needed clarity to businesses and consumers in this legislation. In its current form, this bill has made significant improvements from when it was first marked up in our committee. As drafted, the bill now allows businesses to round cash transactions if exact change cannot be provided, and it also authorizes businesses to continue to round in favor of customers. This legislation also requires the Federal Reserve to prepare a strategic plan in connection with managing the circulation of the penny. Additionally, the bill will now grapple with potential unintended consequences that come from ending penny production, like rounding cash transactions on low-income and unbanked communities and more. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Arkansas for his leadership on this. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garcia), who is also the ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, as someone who grew up in the Old Colony Housing Projects in South Boston, Massachusetts, and as a cofounder of the Affordable Housing Caucus along with Reverend Emanuel Cleaver, Greg Meeks, and Ritchie Torres, I am proud to join my colleagues, French Hill from Arkansas; the gentlewoman from California, Maxine Waters; Chairman Flood; and Reverend Emanuel Cleaver from Kansas City in rising in support of this bill, which while it does not solve every issue we have today with housing in this country, it does a lot. It stops the commoditization of housing by real estate companies and private equity firms that would compete with families in acquiring their first home. I realize it took a lot of work across the aisle. I congratulate our colleagues in the Senate, as well, for the work that they have done. We have got to do a lot more. We have got to bring the cost of housing down, and we have got to increase the supply of housing. We are about 7 million units short here--7 million homes short in the United States. This is a good start. It is a good start, and it is a collaboration between Republicans and Democrats on one of those elements of the American Dream that is undeniable and that is shared in red States as well as blue States. Again, I congratulate all of my colleagues on working together on this. It shows you what we can do in this country when we work together. I look forward to the next iteration of this bill, as well.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the USS Massachusetts (SSN-798) Virginia Class nuclear submarine and her crew on the historic occasion of her commissioning, in Boston Harbor, in her namesake Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on March 28. 2026. It has been more than 50 years since the last USS Massachusetts (BB-59) served the Nation as a Ship of the Line. The eighth United States Naval vessel to carry the name, dating back to 1791, the USS Massachusetts (SSN-798) will build upon the proud legacy of the previous seven ships christened USS Massachusetts, representing a Commonwealth with claims on the birthplace of the United States Navy, and which is the home of the great USS Constitution, the oldest commissioned ship in the fleet. This warship will further underscore Massachusetts' rich maritime tradition, naval service and commitment of its citizens by her motto, inspired by President Kennedy's Inaugural Address, emblazoned on the ship's crest: Pro Patria ``For Country.'' Naming the Navy's latest, most advanced submarine the USS Massachusetts provides a proud continuity, as two of the U.S. Submarine Medal of Honor recipients (of only eight in history) serving in World War II are tied to the Commonwealth; then Commander Vice Admiral Lawson ``Red'' Paterson Ramage, was born in Monroe, Massachusetts, and then Lieutenant Commander Captain George Levick Street, III was a long-time resident of the Commonwealth in Andover. Fully embracing our rich maritime heritage and steadfast service to the Nation, dating back to the Revolutionary War, the USS Massachusetts (SSN-798) Commissioning Committee is working to develop a strong bond between the ship and the Commonwealth, and to cultivate a strong and sustained relationship between the citizens of the Commonwealth and the crew of the USS Massachusetts (SSN-798). Mr. Speaker, this state-of-the-art Virginia Class nuclear attack submarine, christened USS Massachusetts (SSN-798), has completed acceptance trials and been delivered to our Nation's Navy by the builder, Huntington Ingalls Industry. Its world-class, leading-edge stealth and other technological innovations will be a key component of the United States Naval Fleet, capable of a wide array of critical missions. I am confident that all citizens of the Commonwealth, and all Americans. will be proud of the future role of the USS Massachusetts (SSN-798) and her crew members in protecting our Nation. I again would like to recognize the profound historical significance of the commissioning of warship USS Massachusetts (SSN-798) and extend our best wishes for good fortune for all those that sail aboard her, for fair winds and following seas during her service to our Nation, and that service should commence with her commissioning in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on March 28, 2026 in Boston Harbor. God-speed.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Mr. Thomas ``Mucka'' McGrath, President of the South Boston Citizens Association, a steadfast steward of Boston's history and a tireless champion of community in South Boston, Massachusetts. For years, Tom McGrath has stood at the center of some of our city's most meaningful traditions, including the annual Evacuation Day commemorations at Dorchester Heights. As organizer and guiding force behind this and many other events, Tom has worked diligently to ensure that the legacy of March 17, 1776--the day British forces evacuated Boston following General George Washington's successful fortification of the Heights--is duly honored and celebrated. This year marks the 250th anniversary of that historic moment. It is a milestone in the history of Boston, and in the founding story of our great Nation. Through Tom's leadership, the Evacuation Day ceremonies have grown into a fitting tribute to the courage and sacrifice of those who secured one of the first major victories of the American Revolutionary War. He has helped transform remembrance into renewal by bringing together veterans, elected officials, students, families, and neighbors in a shared celebration of American independence and Boston pride. Tom's work extends far beyond event planning. As President of the South Boston Citizens Association, he has dedicated himself to strengthening civic life in our community. He understands that history is not simply something we commemorate once a year; it is something we live out in how we serve one another. Under his leadership, the South Boston Citizens Association has continued its longstanding mission of promoting civic engagement, neighborhood pride, and respect for the traditions that define South Boston. In a rapidly changing city, Tom McGrath has been a steady hand, ensuring that progress does not come at the expense of memory and that future generations understand the sacrifices that built today's community. His commitment reflects a deep love of neighborhood and country, and an abiding belief that local traditions are the foundation of our national identity. Mr. Speaker, it is often said that our freedom was secured at Dorchester Heights. Thanks to leaders like Tom McGrath, the spirit of that victory endures 250 years later. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Thomas ``Mucka'' McGrath for his service to South Boston and to the City of Boston, and in thanking him for preserving and honoring the legacy of Dorchester Heights for generations to come.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Adams Memorial Commission, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2306, the Adams Memorial-Great American Heroes Act. This legislation would extend until 2032 the existing authorization to build the Adams Memorial in the President's Park, dedicated to the contributions to our Nation by John and Abigail Adams, John Quincy and Louisa Catherine Adams, Charles Francis Adams and Henry Adams and their family. The exciting part of this is that while efforts have been made in the past, we have finally arrived upon what I think is a suitable location for this memorial. It is shown in this small rectangle here, not very far from the White House itself on the Ellipse. I think that is the key to the success of this effort, and I give great credit to the bill's sponsor, John Moolenaar, and my other colleagues on the Adams Commission for making the effort and advocating that the Adams family receive the recognition, and the appropriateness of this memorial speaks to that as well. Mr. Speaker, during the 118th Congress, I was honored to be appointed to the Adams Memorial Commission by Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. I also recognize and thank the commission chair, Jackie Cushman, who was essential to this whole process and really was a driving force in bringing all of us together, as well as Commissioner Major General Peter Cooke, and Commissioner Richard Houghton for their dedication to this effort. In addition, I thank my fellow Members of Congress on the commission, Congressman Morgan Griffith of Virginia and also the lead sponsor of this bill, Congressman John Moolenaar of Michigan. As others have also noted, our dear friend and colleague, the late Congressman Gerry Connolly also served on the Adams Commission until his passing earlier this year. Gerry dedicated his life to serving his community and our Nation and stood for what was fair and just, as did our former Presidents John and John Quincy Adams. Congressman Connolly is deeply missed, and the remaining members of the commission greatly appreciate his work and the work of my Massachusetts delegation colleagues, first Bill Delahunt, who we lost a couple years ago and worked on this commission, and Congressman Bill Keating, who actually stood in Gerry Connolly's place to join the commission and carry on Representative Connolly's legacy. As the gentleman from Colorado noted, the success of this endeavor is greatly aided by the designation of this particular site for the purpose of establishing this memorial. President John Adams was one of our most influential Founding Fathers, negotiating the Treaty of Paris that secured our independence from Britain. He was also a steadfast public servant who believed staunchly in the rule of law, defending British soldiers after the Boston Massacre, even when it was unpopular, and ensuring the first peaceful transfer of power after his loss in the 1800 Presidential election. His son, John Quincy Adams, was equally as devoted to public service, and I am honored to hold the same seat in the House of Representatives that he once held after his Presidency, where he made the fight against slavery one of his primary causes. His advocacy for public education and the sciences is a legacy that I am proud to continue. Mr. Speaker, this is the third attempt at this effort. It is a glaring oversight that on the eve of our 250th anniversary there is still no memorial in our Nation's Capital honoring John Adams, John Quincy Adams, both Presidents, and their family, and their leading role in shaping our country. This recognition is long overdue. In closing, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this act, and I thank you for the time and courtesy.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise today to recognize school custodians on National Custodian Appreciation Day. Celebrating the tireless work of our school custodians is immensely important, for they are the quiet champions of our schools working diligently, day in and day out, to ensure that our learning environments remain clean, safe, and welcoming. They are often the first to arrive and the last to leave, faithfully fulfilling their duties with dedication and pride. National Custodian Day was first established in 1972, when a group of educators and school administrators recognized the vital contributions of custodians in creating safe and healthy spaces for students to learn. They wanted to show appreciation for the hard work and steadfast commitment of custodial staff to their school communities. By 1998, custodian appreciation efforts had expanded beyond expressions of gratitude to raise awareness about the critical role custodians play in maintaining cleanliness, hygiene, and order in every setting. People have begun to acknowledge the often-overlooked impact custodial workers have on our daily lives. Since then, custodian appreciation initiatives have continued to grow and gain global recognition, Planned events and gestures have grown, promoting respect and recognition, and emphasizing the significance of the contributions of school custodians. School custodians are our children's first line of defense against germs and illness. Through their consistent and tireless efforts, they ensure that our schools remain places where students can thrive. From before the first bell rings until long after the last student leaves, custodians work to create an environment where learning and growth can flourish. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the custodians in our schools throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the entire United States. I ask that my colleagues in Congress and friends throughout Massachusetts join me in celebrating school custodians on National Custodian Appreciation Day as we honor their dedication and their many contributions to our school communities.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the remarkable achievements of the Braintree American Little League team from Massachusetts, who proudly represented New England at the 2025 Little League Baseball World Series in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Their journey was nothing short of historic. As the first Braintree team in 72 years to win the Massachusetts State Championship, and the first to ever capture the New England Regional title, the Braintree Americans entered the World Series with an undefeated 3-0 regional record. In their opening game on August 14th, they faced South Carolina and fell 13-0. Yet, despite that tough loss, they remained undeterred, continuing to show the resilience and spirit that had gotten them this far. On August 16th, they made history by earning their first-ever World Series victory, defeating Richmond, Texas (Lamar LL) 7-3 in thrilling fashion. Caden McCarthy's two-run triple, a wild pitch score, and a clutch two-run hit by Sam Trotta sealed the win and etched their names in history books. The following day, on August 17th, they battled Bonney Lake, Washington, but were narrowly defeated 3-2, bringing an end to their valiant run. Although their tournament ended with a loss, Braintree American captured the hearts of their entire community. The players, coaches, and families of this extraordinary team have our deepest admiration for their resilience, teamwork, and the pride with which they represented their town. Through their efforts, they have not only made history but have united the Braintree community and shown the true meaning of sportsmanship. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in extending heartfelt congratulations to the 2025 Braintree American Little League World Series Team, their coaches, and their families. They have inspired a new generation of athletes and have put Braintree on the map as a community of champions. We offer our warmest applause to the incredible players of Braintree American--Frankie Fasoli III, Ryan Fennell, Jack Cushing, Charlie Doolin, Trevor Inglis, Henry Kuka, Cam Naumann, Caden McCarthy, Owen Kippenhan, Logan Needle, Sam Trotta, and Colman Gouthro--as well as Manager Frank Fasoli and Coaches PJ Kippenhan and Shaun Needle. Their hard work, dedication, and sportsmanship have made them all true icons of their community. Congratulations.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to rise today to commemorate the rededication of the new church edifice the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Boston, Massachusetts. Today, we also celebrate as they embark on a new journey, under the direction of Reverend Carl B. Thompson, to continue their legacy of ministry in the Town of Abington. I join with the church community in welcoming the Reverend Dr. Jonathan McReynolds to Massachusetts as we mark this momentous occasion in the church's history. While the Ebenezer Baptist Church was formally recognized in 1871, the church's history began years earlier. Former slaves from the Brandon Plantation in Prince Georges County, Virginia, arrived at Long Wharf in Boston on September 15, 1847. Initially, group meetings for song and prayer service were held in the kitchen of Mrs. Martha Jones. In subsequent years in a hall at 1060 Washington Street, children gathered for Sunday school and adults learned reading, writing and ``good citizenship.'' Mrs. Jones' kitchen prayer services transformed into Sunday evening preaching services with Reverend Randolph, the church's first pastor and founder. Since its inception, the church has served not only as a house of worship, but also as a central hub where Boston's Black community gather for organizing and education. Generations of congregants have joined together over the decades for worship and fellowship, deepening their personal Christian commitment and call to civic action. Despite the uncertainty during and since the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020, the unwavering faith of its congregants and leadership carried the church through four years of temporary locations. In Abington, Massachusetts, the Ebenezer Baptist Church has found its way home. It has been Reverend Thompson's steadfast leadership, vision and heart that have led the church community through these sometimes difficult and emotional transitions. As noted in his biography, Reverend Thompson ``is truly an added blessing to the life and ministry of the Ebenezer Baptist Church.'' Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the impact and legacy of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, as an African American congregation, as the church expands its roots into the Town of Abington and surrounding communities. I ask that my colleagues in Congress and friends throughout Massachusetts join me in wishing the church much success in all its new endeavors.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership on this issue. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3633, the so-called CLARITY Act. I believe this misguided legislation will have devastating impacts on our financial stability, national security, and investor protection. While my Republican friends claim that this bill will regulate crypto market structure, in reality, it eviscerates the longstanding history of investor protections that have made our markets the envy of the world. Most importantly, this bill, this push for crypto, will not end well for the U.S. taxpayer. This bill will lead to the next financial crisis, and the largest crypto donors who wrote this bill will walk away unharmed because the worst aspect of this bill is that Republicans have repeatedly refused to include a single amendment preventing a Federal taxpayer bailout of the crypto industry. That is what this bill does. Additionally, this bill includes zero provisions to prevent the President, who has a $620-million conflict of interest, from continuing his ability to accept emoluments from foreign governments like Abu Dhabi. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and protect the American taxpayer.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called GENIUS Act. Mr. Speaker, this bill has never even been considered or debated by the House Financial Services Committee or the Agriculture Committee, the committees of jurisdiction, which is the usual practice in this body. I guess this is what passes for genius these days. Republican leadership has, once again, caved in to President Trump's demands to quickly push crypto legislation. President Trump just yesterday posted to pass the GENIUS Act ASAP. There is no need to debate it, read it, or amend it. Just pass it. Mr. Speaker, you might think that Republicans might be cautious about taking financial policy directions from someone who has a side hustle selling baseball hats and Bibles and who has filed bankruptcy six times in the past 20 years. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, you would be mistaken. This bill significantly weakens the U.S. dollar, which is the global U.S. reserve currency and provides a huge competitive advantage for our country. This bill allows a complete takeover of our financial system by Big Tech companies by allowing these massive companies to issue their own cryptocurrencies. For example, Google has 3.5 billion daily users, and META has over 2 billion active daily users, not to mention Amazon, X, or Walmart. Several of these companies have already indicated they are planning to launch crypto stablecoins if this bill becomes law. These companies can easily compel or incentivize users to move away from the dollar, away from traditional banks, and into these so-called stablecoins. President Trump's own stablecoin is set to become one of the top 10 stablecoins after Abu Dhabi announced a $2 billion investment in World Liberty Financial, which is a joint venture between the Trump family, his sons, and Steve Witkoff and his family. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that Steve Witkoff is Trump's Special Envoy to the Middle East, where Abu Dhabi is located. Nothing in this bill prevents the clear conflicts of interest and violations of ethics laws by President Trump. The worst aspect of this bill is the danger and risk that it puts on the backs of U.S. taxpayers because this will not end well, and nothing in this bill prevents a taxpayer bailout of crypto. If we really wanted to protect the taxpayer, we could require the crypto companies that are pushing these bills to absorb the losses if they fail. That would seem fair. Despite several attempts to have amendments included in this bill that would protect the taxpayer from paying for crypto bailouts, my Republican colleagues repeatedly refused. We have seen in the past, in 2008, when the last version of financial innovation blew up, the collateralized debt obligations and other complex derivatives. It was the taxpayer who had to clean up that mess to the tune of $700 billion, while the bankers who created the mess got bonuses. We should not let that happen again. Mr. Speaker, I urge my friends on the other side and my colleagues on our side to defend the U.S. taxpayer and vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her confidence and for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1919, the so-called Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act. At the expense of U.S. global economic leadership, this misguided legislation would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency, also known as a CBDC. Unfortunately, the facts surrounding the development of CBDC have been obscured by disinformation, conspiracy theories, and extreme political ideology. Republicans and the crypto industry have made unfounded claims that a CBDC will be used as a surveillance tool by the Federal Government. Let's be clear about what a CBDC is. It is a publicly issued digital dollar that would be regulated by the Federal Reserve, an independent Federal Reserve, that would have the full faith and backing of the U.S. Government. A CBDC could serve as an alternative to existing forms of payments, and it will have benefits, including instant payment settlement, providing a medium for cross-border transactions, and fostering greater financial inclusion. Additionally, Congress could require that the architecture of a central bank digital currency not have surveillance capability. More than 130 countries are or have been studying or have launched their own government-backed digital currencies, including every major world power. Meanwhile, the U.S. remains far behind amid increasing and blatant misinformation about the features of digital currency. Let's talk about the EU. It is widely acknowledged that the EU has one of the most stringent data protection regimes and protection laws on the planet. They have strict data protections, number one, on the GDPR, so EU citizens have access to control of their personal data. They have the right to be forgotten, which would prevent data surveillance and surveillance of citizens, and they have strict penalties for companies that violate their personal data rights. The United States could have the same in a U.S. digital currency. There is a widening gap between the U.S. and its G7 peers, all of whom have far more advanced CBDC projects than the U.S. I will go back to the EU. The EU is in the final stages of a pilot retail CBDC program already. They are so far ahead of us. They are going to capture the future if we adopt this bill. The U.S. Government has always led the way in harnessing technology to promote innovation. DARPA and NASA space programs are clear examples of what happens when the U.S. invests in research and development. While concerns about data privacy could be real, we have the ability to protect that data in any architecture that we adopt. It is counterintuitive that my colleagues would be raising concerns about data privacy while thousands of private companies are scooping up data every single day. Mr. Speaker, vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Mr. LYNCH

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

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 2056, which would effectively nullify laws, policies, and practices duly enacted by the District of Columbia because I strongly support the ability of the residents of the District of Columbia to govern themselves on local matters. This is one of two D.C. bills that the House is considering this week to demonize immigrants. Let's be clear: The District of Columbia is in full compliance with Federal law. It does not obstruct ICE from carrying out its duties. D.C., like many other jurisdictions, limits its cooperation with Federal immigration agencies to what Federal law actually requires. Why do jurisdictions limit such cooperation other than the fact that immigration is a Federal responsibility? Let us ask the police chiefs for an explanation. The Major Cities Chiefs Association opposes such cooperation for four reasons: ``Enforcement of routine civil immigration by police would undermine the trust and cooperation with immigrant communities which are essential elements of community-oriented policing. ``Courts have held that the lack of legal authority to enforce Federal civil immigration statutes exposes police to liability for unlawful arrest and detention. ``Local agencies do not possess adequate resources to enforce these laws in addition to the added responsibility of homeland security. ``Immigration laws are very complex, and the training required to understand them and to properly prosecute them significantly detracts from the core mission of local police to create safe communities.'' Let's be clear again: D.C. is in full compliance with Federal law. It does not obstruct ICE from carrying out its duties, and it is backed by evidence demonstrating that limiting cooperation keeps people safer. Counties with laws that do not honor extrajudicial civil detainers have significantly lower levels of violent crime than counties that don't have such laws. Mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, and local leaders across the country have made clear that the way to combat violent crime is allowing local police to do their job of ensuring public safety in their own communities, not commandeering local police to spend limited time and resources rounding up and detaining nonviolent immigrants who pose no threat. Forcing the District of Columbia to carry out the Federal Government's immigration duties also discourages residents from coming forward to share information with the police about violent crimes for fear that they or someone close to them will be detained or deported. This is simply bad policy and will hurt the residents of the District of Columbia. The House should reject H.R. 2056 and stop interfering in local D.C. matters. Instead, it should pass the District of Columbia Local Funds Act, and H.R. 51, Washington, D.C. Admission Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let's take up that challenge. Let's make sure the laws that we have passed in this House apply and are complied with in Washington, D.C. The gentleman may forget, this isn't the first debate we have had about Washington, D.C., or the District of Columbia. We have had this debate through history ever since the Founders of this country created the District. It is a special district in addition to being our National Capital. Most recently, in 1973, this Congress created the Washington, D.C. Home Rule Act. I will explain to the gentleman what that requires. The Home Rule Act in D.C. says because there is shared jurisdiction within this District that the people of Washington, D.C., the residents here, may govern their local affairs as they please. I emphasize: as they please, for local affairs. The performance of their local police force is an area within their local control. That is number one. Let's enforce the laws that have been passed in this House respective to the people of the District of Columbia. Number two. Violent crime, the special circumstances about keeping Washington, D.C., safe. Violent crime in D.C. reached a 30-year low this year, this past year, a 30-year low. Compare that to any city in the country, and it is a favorable comparison. The police department in Washington, D.C., is doing an amazing job, and the political leadership of D.C. has stepped up. There were years many years ago when there were deep and serious questions about the leadership in Washington, D.C. They have improved dramatically over the last few decades. This year, violent crime in D.C. is down 22 percent compared to the same period last year, and studies show that handling law enforcement the way they have, with community policing and getting to know the people in the neighborhoods, has been a key element. This is according to the last five police chiefs in this city. That spans over about 50 years. This is what they say, that this is the way to keep the people safe, work with the local community. I know the gentleman is from law enforcement. I am just asking to afford the same respect and deference to our local law enforcement leaders here in this community, give them the benefit of the doubt of how they provide safety in their own city. They know it best. They know the people. They know the streets. They know the challenges. It is a special place. There is a protest every couple of days, a major one in this city, people for various causes marching through the city take it over, and the local law enforcement has to be part of that effort to keep those people safe so they can express their rights. It is a special place, but I think we should give deference to the local law enforcement community that they know how best to provide that safety, especially with the record that they have, a 30-year low on crime in this city, 22 percent less violent crime this year compared to the same period last year. The gentleman's argument was correct. He shouldn't have to bring a bill up here to do this. He shouldn't have to interfere with local control in this city. He shouldn't have to bring a bill up here to tell the local people how to run their city when Congress has already, in 1973, given them that power in the District of Columbia Home Rule Act. I shouldn't have to defend that right that has already been granted by previous Congresses. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the Delegate from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about crime in D.C. Let's talk about crime in D.C., as the gentleman mentioned. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about January 6. We had 1,500 people ransack the Capitol. Let's talk about what happened to them in consequence. They were rewarded. They were pardoned. Yet, to this day, the Speaker of the House refuses to hang the plaque honoring the over 150 police officers who defended the people in this Chamber, who defended the Republicans. I know all the Republicans didn't feel safe that day because I saw them running from the crowd, running in fear, until the President told them, no, that was just a tour of the Capitol. They all made excuses for what happened that day. Not one of those people who ran out of the Capitol for safety that day came back to say that they should be held responsible. Now, all of those people have been pardoned. Mr. Speaker, when they talk about crime in D.C., holding people accountable, and feeling safe, do they think that day was making democracy great again when the elected leaders had to hide, being chased out of this Chamber doing the people's business? Is this an example of how the Republicans are going to bring the rule of law to D.C.? Give me a break. You have to be kidding me. To this day, Officer Sicknick's family--there were three officers who eventually died of causes related to the attack on the Capitol on January 6. Those families would hope that the people who were saved that day might be grateful. Those families lost their husbands, fathers, and sons. They simply want to have their sacrifice and law enforcement recognized by the people who were rescued. I know there are a number of my colleagues on the other side who had exemplary careers in law enforcement. They understand better than any that when you have a son, daughter, husband, or wife who gives their life in service of protecting the people in this Chamber, you would hope for at least just a small gesture, a plaque to commemorate that heroism and service to their country. That is not happening, and that is a shame. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The title of this bill is misleading. The District of Columbia already complies with Federal immigration law, including warrants and orders related to immigrants issued by Article III courts. It is ironic that the Republican leadership is cutting or denying the ability of the District of Columbia to spend a billion dollars of the money that they have raised within the District to meet their obligations here in the city. Yet, while they are cutting their budget by $1 billion, they are saying, even though Federal law doesn't require cities to do all this stuff, we want them to do the Federal Government's job, as well. That is the irony here. Federal immigration law doesn't require the States or cities to inquire about citizenship or immigration status or manage immigration policy. They don't require cities to do that, especially a smaller jurisdiction like Washington, D.C. What my colleagues want to do is they want to shift the burden of the Federal responsibilities onto the District of Columbia and their political leadership, at the same time when they are cutting $1 billion of the budget from Washington, D.C. It is adding insult to injury. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because I strongly support D.C. home rule. For this reason and at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would have been the text of S. 1077, the District of Columbia Local Funds Act. I would have tried to put that $1 billion back into their own budget. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record immediately prior to the motion to recommit.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I must note that it has been nearly 3 months since the Senate passed the bipartisan District of Columbia Local Funds Act, which would undo the $1 billion cut to the local D.C. budget in the House Republican-drafted fiscal year bill. The Republican-led Senate understood immediately the cut's harms and passed the District of Columbia Local Funds Act within 4 hours of its introduction by the Republican Senator, Susan Collins, the chair on the Committee on Appropriations. The local D.C. budget consists entirely of revenue raised by D.C. It is raised by the District of Columbia, which is why the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the District of Columbia Local Funds Act would have zero effect on the Federal budget. For the prior two decades, Congress had allowed the District of Columbia to spend under its current local budget for the duration of every continuing resolution. However, the fiscal year 2025 full-year continuing resolution forced D.C. to revert to its fiscal year 2024 local budget. It did so halfway through the fiscal year. In doing so, the continuing resolution sabotaged the D.C. local budget. There was no time to respond. On March 28, President Trump called on the House to pass the District of Columbia Local Funds Act immediately. Last month, Speaker Johnson said the House had been too busy to act on the District of Columbia Local Funds Act, while it worked on the reconciliation bill. The House somehow found time to rename the Gulf of Mexico. The House passed the reconciliation bill on May 22. The House has found time this week to take up three bills to overturn the ability of the people of Washington, D.C., to govern themselves. The House is now out of excuses on the District of Columbia Local Funds Act. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am strongly opposed to H.R. 2096, which would repeal provisions of a law enacted by the District of Columbia. Madam Speaker, D.C. deserves the right to govern itself. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate full legislative authority to the District of Columbia for local matters. However, Republicans choose not to do so. Police officers are entrusted with extraordinary authority to protect public safety. The vast majority of officers exercise it honorably and bravely. However, there must be accountability and transparency for instances in which officers violate their oath of office. H.R. 2096 would repeal provisions of a 2023 D.C. law that made it easier for the police department to discipline officers for crimes and serious misconduct. Before that law, the department had been forced to rehire a significant number of officers it had fired for crimes and official misconduct. Let me provide examples of the types of officers the department had to rehire: officers convicted or arrested for child abuse, sexual assault, indecent exposure, drunk driving causing injuries, domestic violence, and assaults while off-duty. D.C. also had to provide millions of dollars in backpay to those officers it was forced to rehire. D.C. also had to pay millions of dollars to resolve police officer misconduct lawsuits. Before the 2023 D.C. law, every single D.C. police chief, for at least the prior 25 years, has requested more authority to discipline officers. H.R. 2096 would inexplicably revoke this authority. By bringing H.R. 2096 to the floor, Republicans are declaring they know better than the D.C. police chiefs how to run the department. Let's hear what some of these D.C. police chiefs have had to say about this authority. Let's start with former Chief Peter Newsham. He said that he had to allow ``very bad police officers back into our department.'' Former Chief Charles Ramsey said: ``It is demoralizing to the rank and file who really do not want to have those kinds of people in their ranks. It causes a tremendous amount of anxiety in the public. Our credibility is shot whenever these things happen.'' Former Chief Robert Contee said that this authority would ``help reduce the risk of returning poor performers to the force. . . . '' Following the devastating murder of George Floyd, D.C. enacted the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, which, in pertinent part, made it easier for the police department to discipline officers. H.R. 2096 would repeal that discipline provision in that law. H.R. 2096, as introduced, includes a purpose section. The purpose is ``to combat the rise in violent crime in our Nation's Capital by eliminating policies which place law enforcement personnel of the District of Columbia at risk and discourage them from serving, ensuring that such personnel will be treated equitably and fairly and the recruitment and retention of such personnel shall be increased.'' We are not surprised that the version of H.R. 2096 on the floor today does not include that purpose section since it is inaccurate. Violent crime is not rising here in D.C. In 2025, violent crime in D.C. is down 22 percent compared to the same period in 2024. In 2024, violent crime in D.C. was the lowest in over 30 years. Let me repeat. Violent crime is falling in D.C. and is at a 30-year low in the District of Columbia. The D.C. Police Department is not alone in having difficulty in recruiting and retaining police officers. Police departments of all sizes across the country have had this difficulty for many years. A survey conducted in 2019, before jurisdictions across the country enacted police accountability and transparency legislation after the murder of George Floyd, found ``that the difficulty in recruiting law enforcement officers and employees is not due to one particular cause. Rather, multiple social, political, and economic forces are all simultaneously at play. . . . '' H.R. 2096 would repeal four discipline provisions. First, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that removed police officer discipline for collective bargaining. Several States, including States represented by Republicans, prohibit collective bargaining by police officers. The 2023 D.C. law maintained the right of police officers to collectively bargain, except over discipline, and maintained the civil service protections and due process rights of officers. Collective bargaining by police officers has been widely criticized for protecting police officers from discipline. A Republican staff report for the Joint Economic Committee said: ``Collective bargaining plays a significant role in shielding police officers from the consequences of their misconduct. . . . '' Second, H.R. 2096 would reinstitute a 90-day statute of limitations on the police department to commence discipline. The 2023 D.C. law repealed that provision because 90 days was not enough time, in some cases, to commence discipline. Adjudicators had overturned discipline because the department had exceeded the 90-day statute of limitations. There is no statute of limitations for most D.C. employees. The home State of the sponsor of H.R. 2096 has an 18-month statute of limitations to commence discipline against police officers. Third, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that gave the police chief the authority to increase the discipline proposed by a police trial board, which consists of police officers. Before the 2023 D.C. law, the police chief could only impose or reduce the proposed discipline or order a new trial. The D.C. law increased the discipline power of the chief and reduced the discipline power of the trial board, which may be more inclined to protect their fellow officers from discipline. Fourth, H.R. 2096 would repeal a provision that required the police department to publish on a public website a schedule of officer discipline hearings which are open to the public. The House of Representatives itself publishes on a public website a schedule of its committee hearings. I close with a question and a plea. If Republicans support police officers, why hasn't Speaker Johnson installed the plaque honoring the brave police officers, including D.C. officers, who defended this Capitol on January 6? Federal law requires its installation by March 15, 2023, more than 2 years ago. That plaque in honor of officers who were killed defending the Members of this Congress, defending this institution, is apparently sitting in a closet. The families of those officers who were killed and beaten that day are waiting for the due respect that is owed to their husbands, sons, and fathers. The more than 700,000 D.C. residents who have all the obligations of citizenship, including paying Federal taxes and serving in our Nation's wars, deserve voting representation in Congress and full home rule. I call on the House of Representatives to pass H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.