Mary Scanlon

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, I am here to emphasize that this proposed constitutional amendment would undermine our system of checks and balances and fly in the face of the Founders' wisdom. I think it would be a grave mistake to dictate how many Justices should sit on the Supreme Court in perpetuity and, thereby, lock in for a generation, or more, a rightwing majority, which has engaged in an unprecedented assault on Supreme Court norms and our constitutional order. For the past several years, in the wake of the Court packing that occurred during the first Trump administration and under the Senate leadership of Mitch McConnell, constituents have called for Supreme Court reform at every townhall that I have held. Those calls have grown louder in the wake of each decision that has lessened our individual rights and liberties or enabled the administration to avoid accountability or overrule the powers and duties reserved to the American people through their Representatives in Congress and in the ethical lapses of the Court's own members. People are paying attention. They are demanding a Court that is more responsive to we the people than to an administration that is beholden to special interests and oligarchs. The American public, the Founders, and the Constitution demand more than a misguided constitutional amendment that would permanently tie Congress' hands by capping the number of Justices, especially when there are more pragmatic solutions that have not yet received due consideration. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this measure.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Importantly, it would also allow for States to adopt permanent daylight saving time through State law if they choose. If we are going to make a permanent change that affects every American, we should follow the science, learn from history, and prioritize Americans' health, particularly that of our children. That is why I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on H.R. 139.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, as I think we can all tell from the ensuing debate here, there are serious issues that this body needs to be wrestling with, but the Speaker has chosen to put on the floor this week H.R. 139, a bill that would make daylight saving time permanent. I think there is one thing everyone in this Chamber can agree on: Americans do not like changing their clocks twice a year. The big question isn't whether we should ditch the switch; it is how. Unfortunately, the bill that the Speaker has chosen chooses the wrong solution by making daylight saving time permanent nationwide while denying States the right to enact permanent standard time if they so choose--not if, but when they discover that Congress made the wrong choice. We can all understand the appeal of an extra hour of sunlight in the summer, but permanent daylight saving time comes with serious health and safety concerns with even darker winter mornings. If this bill becomes law, winter mornings across the country are going to look very different. Millions of Americans will wake up during the winter months in complete darkness, with the Sun not rising until long after people get up and travel to school or work or have to go about their days. In much of upstate and northern New York, communities will not see the Sun rise until well after 8:30 a.m. In Michigan, it will be close to 9 before the Sun comes up. In parts of the Pacific Northwest, sunrise will be pushed even later than 9 a.m. In many parts of the country, children will be waiting for schoolbuses in darkness. Parents will be driving to work before sunrise. Morning commuters, students, and pedestrians will be starting their day in the dark, not because of the seasons, but because Congress decided to move the clock instead of following the Sun. We don't have to speculate about what would happen under permanent daylight saving time. We already tried it. During the 1974 energy crisis, Congress made daylight saving time permanent in a failed attempt to save energy. It lasted less than a year. Families found themselves sending their kids to school in the dark, and there was a rash of fatal crashes involving schoolchildren. Communities raised serious safety concerns, and public support, which initially was quite strong, quickly collapsed. Congress repealed the policy within months. The science has only become clearer since then. Medical and scientific experts have endorsed the move to permanent standard time because permanent daylight saving time disrupts our natural circadian rhythms, the internal clocks that regulate when we sleep and wake. That disruption has been linked to higher rates of heart disease, stroke, chronic sleep deprivation, and other adverse health concerns. These bad outcomes are even more serious and long-lasting than the sleep deprivation, traffic accidents, and heart attacks that follow the twice-yearly changes that we currently have. I have also heard directly from my constituents. Like most Americans, they are ready to ditch the switch, but when I ask which permanent system they would prefer if they had to choose, the clear preference was for standard time. A Gallup poll last year found that Americans preferred permanent standard time to permanent daylight saving time by 2-to-1. That is why I have introduced the bipartisan Sunshine for Our Kids Act with Representative Pat Harrigan. Our bill would end the clock changes and make standard time the national default.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SCANLON

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

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, underneath all the rhetoric we have heard today, this debate comes down to a very simple question about what kind of country we want to be and what we believe government should do for the people it serves. As Americans struggle with rising costs, economic uncertainty, and the consequences of this reckless and expensive war in Iran, Republicans have chosen to spend nearly $210 billion in taxpayer dollars on ICE and CBP. At every turn, this Republican majority says that there is no money for housing, for schools, for healthcare, for SNAP, for WIC, or for food for infants and children. Yet, somehow, there is always enough to fight forever wars, to give tax cuts to the wealthy, and to drive chaos and division into our communities. The tragedy is that Congress could choose a different path. We could invest in our communities instead of detention camps. We could lower costs for working families instead of enriching lobbyists, consultants, and private prison companies. We could protect constitutional rights and strengthen public trust instead of rewarding agencies that have repeatedly abused both. We could implement humane and sensible immigration policies that support, rather than suppress, our economy and economic development, and that don't scare away foreign visitors, whether from Niagara Falls in the Buffalo area or from Independence Hall in my district, where we are seeing the direct impact of bad immigration policy on visitors for our 250th anniversary and for the World Cup. These are the choices before this House. This legislation is not a serious attempt to solve problems. It is an ideological project built around fear, division, and the concentration of executive power. Think about what this bill will do. Republicans are about to spend exorbitant sums to put more masked agents on our streets, to spy on their political opponents, and to build a sprawling network of detention camps, private corporate detention camps, capable of imprisoning tens of thousands of who? Political enemies? It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see where this authoritarian project is going. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and demonstrate their support for law enforcement by denying payments from the President's slush fund to the people who attacked law enforcement officers here at the Capitol on January 6, and I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous waste of taxpayer money. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, to discuss our proposal.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am so glad to hear my colleague from Iowa express support for the safety of our law enforcement officers, and I would like to offer him and the whole caucus the opportunity to live up to that sentiment. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to allow the House to take an up-or-down vote on an amendment to S. 2 authored by Ranking Member Raskin, which would prohibit anyone who was convicted of or pleaded guilty to assaulting a law enforcement officer on January 6, 2021, from receiving a settlement payment from the Department of Justice. This taxpayer-funded slush fund to compensate insurrectionists and Trump allies is a disgrace. Even though the DOJ has paused this effort, the President on Sunday said he loves the idea and doesn't know what is going to happen to it. Since my Republican colleagues seem unwilling to kill this slush fund outright, maybe they will at least accept some restrictions on who can get legal settlement money from the Federal Government and from taxpayers. This next vote is very simple. Democrats want to vote to enshrine the following language into law: ``The Department of Justice may not use taxpayer funds to make settlement payments to individuals convicted of or who pled guilty to assaulting law enforcement officers at or around the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.'' These individuals beat and injured dozens of law enforcement officers with bats, bike racks, fire extinguishers, and flag poles on January 6. They should not receive taxpayer-funded payouts. If there are just a few Republicans who agree and are willing to join us in defeating the previous question, we could fix this right now. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and Ruben Ray Martinez are all American citizens killed by Federal agents in our names, and our colleagues are unwilling to stand up and do anything to prevent that kind of senseless death in the future. Instead, they try to get sympathy, which naturally should be provided to anyone who has suffered a family member's loss, but they can't lecture us that this is about human trafficking when DHS and the Department of Justice have pulled the resources from human and drug trafficking prevention and corporate crime prosecution. They have pulled those resources to direct them toward their massive deportation and detention effort. Eighty percent of the people they are detaining have no criminal records. It is all distract and divide. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher).

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that my colleague from Arizona brought up the impact of immigration on our Social Security system. The fact that immigrants pay into our Social Security system but are not eligible to take benefits out has actually acted to extend the life of that system and is a very important component of keeping that system working, in addition to all the benefits that immigrants bring to our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Simon).

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bills. At its core, this Republican reconciliation budget bill is a statement about priorities, and the priorities reflected in this bill could not be more out of step with the needs and values of the American people. Families across this country are struggling to afford housing, groceries, childcare, and healthcare. Americans are dealing with rising costs, economic uncertainty, and the consequences of another unending war in the Middle East. Americans were promised lower prices and stability, but instead, they are watching gas prices climb back up to $5 a gallon while inflation continues to rise and squeeze household budgets. Against that backdrop, Republicans have decided that what the country really needs is to spend another $70 billion on ICE and Border Patrol. This is on top of the roughly $140 billion Republicans already provided to those agencies last year, much of which remains unspent. Taken together, Republicans are proposing to spend nearly a quarter trillion dollars, all deficit spending, to expand detention camps, fund mass deportation, increase surveillance, and accelerate an immigration crackdown that has already caused enormous harm across our country. Republicans are doing this while simultaneously claiming that America cannot afford investments in schools, housing, nutrition assistance, or healthcare. Let's be honest about what this reconciliation bill represents. Republicans spent years pretending to be deeply concerned about deficits and debt, claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility. They have attacked virtually every Democratic proposal to help working Americans and families, saying that those measures are fiscally irresponsible, but they have used their control of Congress and the White House to add trillions with a t, trillions of dollars, to the debt by giving tax cuts to their wealthy friends and corporate donors. Now, Republicans are adding hundreds of billions more in debt to put more masked and armed ICE agents on our streets and to build out a nationwide network of corporate detention camps. Apparently, deficits only matter when tax dollars are used to help everyday Americans instead of Trump's billionaire buddies. Mr. Speaker, it is also telling that Republicans are using a completely partisan process to ram through this S. 2 legislation. Once again, they are using the partisan reconciliation process to pass a budget because they have refused to negotiate through the normal appropriations process. Specifically, they have refused to enact any reforms to address the lawless behavior of ICE and Customs and Border Protection under the Trump administration. Democrats proposed bipartisan funding solutions for DHS. We proposed reforms, accountability measures, and guardrails after repeated abuses by ICE and CBP resulted in chaos and death on American streets. We asked for basic transparency and oversight after the killings by Federal agents of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, American citizens. We asked that ICE and CBP be held to the same standards as every other responsible law enforcement agency in this country. Republicans said no. They said no to everything. There is not a single provision in this bill to rein in these rogue agents at DHS. The Senate rejected amendment after amendment that would have imposed even minimal constraints on these agencies. The House bypassed committee consideration altogether. Why? It is because Republicans know the American people do not support the chaos that this administration is inflicting. They know Americans don't want masked and armed Federal agents rampaging through their neighborhoods, at their kids' schools and soccer games, and in shopping malls and workplaces. They know Americans are alarmed when lawful residents, law-abiding community members, and even citizens, are roughed up or detained by ICE. They know people are questioning why the Federal Government is building expensive detention camps across the country, capable of imprisoning tens of thousands of people, while Americans can't find housing and their kids don't get enough to eat. The reports of what is happening in those detention camps are increasingly horrifying. In the past year, there have been unprecedented numbers of deaths and suicides; reports of inedible and inadequate food; hunger strikes; lack of medical care leading to serious injury and death; and children, babies, suffering extreme mental and physical illness. Republicans know that Americans are increasingly recognizing that this administration is not arresting and deporting these so-called worst of the worst. Instead, it is using immigration enforcement as a political weapon to distract and scare people so they don't see how this administration is selling our future to the highest corporate bidders. This bill isn't just about funding levels. It is about whether our Republican colleagues are willing to place any limits, any limits whatsoever, on immigration agencies that, under this administration, have repeatedly demonstrated contempt for our Constitution, for basic American values like fairness and decency, and for the dignity and humanity of immigrants, even those who are in this country legally. The administration's record here should concern every American regardless of party. We have seen our government target protesters and political opponents. We have seen our government spy on citizens opposing its unlawful tactics. We have seen people with no criminal record deported to dangerous countries that they have never lived in, based on hearsay or lies. We have seen the expansion of child and family detention, despite decades of evidence that it permanently injures children. We have seen Americans exercising their First Amendment rights to object to these cruel and unlawful policies. We have seen them be falsely labeled as domestic terrorists. We have seen government agents invade our homes and arrest citizens with no warrants. Of course, we have seen those agents detain and even kill American citizens with no due process in the most grotesque violation of our fundamental liberties and rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Congressional Republicans appear okay with this chaos, so today, they plan to give ICE another $70 billion to supercharge these abuses without making any reforms to the agencies that have inflicted them. Paired with this awful reconciliation bill is a package of so-called anti-fraud bills. For the last 1\1/2\ years, Republicans have lectured the country about waste, fraud, and abuse while doing nothing to address the real fraud that plagues government programs and turning a blind eye to blatant corruption coming from this White House, or whatever is left of it. Even if we only look at DHS, ICE, and CBP, the scale of fraud and abuse is staggering and should require close examination by Congress before dumping another $70 billion on those agencies. Of the $140 billion given to ICE and CBP last year in the big, ugly bill, over $100 billion remains unspent. We are supposed to believe that it is a good use of taxpayer dollars to give these agencies another $70 billion when they already have more money than most standing armies in other countries and more than they apparently can responsibly use. At a minimum, Congress needs to look at where that money is going. That is because, as the gentleman from New York suggested, when the government spends that amount of money, the fraudsters take note. The scale of money involved in this legislation and last summer in the big, ugly bill is staggering. A great deal of it already has and will, inevitably, flow to politically connected contractors and private prison corporations that have spent years cultivating influence within the Republican Party. Perhaps that is why our Republican colleagues have no interest in oversight of the beneficiaries of their quarter-trillion-dollar spending spree. Companies like GEO Group and CoreCivic, both major donors to Trump's Presidential campaign and congressional Republicans, have received multibillion-dollar no-bid contracts to operate ICE detention facilities, building a massive private prison camp system across our Nation. GEO alone has reported an 800-percent increase in its profits. Just last week, a watchdog group reported that GEO had made a quarter- million-dollar dark money contribution to a super-PAC aligned with Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, one of the bill's biggest boosters. In addition, DHS has purchased dozens of warehouses to be used as detention camps, with the government paying grossly inflated prices, in some cases, several times over the assessed market value of the property by hundreds of millions of dollars, and paying this to investors with direct financial ties to the President and his administration. Furthermore, most of those facilities were not designed to house people, leading to additional taxpayer costs to renovate them and imposing massive burdens on local infrastructure, governments, and services. Former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and her special adviser, Corey Lewandowski, awarded hundreds of millions of dollars to their friends and associates through costly contracts, including a $200 million ad campaign funneled to their friends, tens of thousands of dollars spent on hairstylists and makeup, $20,000 to rent a horse, and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on multiple luxury jets. While we agree with our Republican colleagues that we should all be concerned about and investigate fraudulent government spending, we wonder whether they will ever acknowledge that fraud and corruption are the defining features of the Trump administration and whether they are going to leave Americans holding the bill. This administration has increasingly erased the line between public policy and political patronage. Americans see it in the contracting process. They see it in Trump's pardons to donors and allies, including corporate criminals who stole taxpayer dollars and seniors' investment funds. They see it in the President's proposed slush fund to give himself and the election deniers and rioters who attacked this Capitol on January 6 $1.8 billion. He wants to give $1.8 billion to cop-beaters and conspiracists, Proud Boys, pedophiles, insurrectionists, election deniers, and even the MyPillow guy. Republicans may argue that Trump has backed off this plan, but we know this is a charade. Once this reconciliation bill passes, I guarantee you the President will revive his fund. Just 2 days ago, the President doubled down on his support for his slush fund. You would be naive to think it is dead. Mr. Speaker, the White House and congressional Republicans are openly using government power to punish and divide people and to enrich themselves and their friends. Republicans have shown no real interest in solving the problems facing Americans at their kitchen tables and in the real world or in combating fraud, waste, and abuse by the most corrupt administration in our Nation's history. People want affordable housing. They want stable jobs and good wages. They want functioning schools and safe communities. They want competent government and a basic sense that their elected officials are trying to improve their lives, not pad their own pockets. The scale of spending here can't be ignored. It is nearly a quarter trillion dollars. That amount of money could transform entire sectors of American life if it were directed toward public needs instead of ideological crusades. Congress could dramatically expand affordable housing. We could stabilize struggling hospitals and community health centers. We could strengthen public schools, modernize infrastructure, reduce child poverty, provide affordable childcare, or lower healthcare costs for millions of Americans. We could even reduce the deficit that our Republican colleagues claim to care so deeply about. At some point, Americans are entitled to ask a very simple question: When does this administration actually start improving people's lives? Mr. Speaker, the country deserves better than this. We deserve leadership focused on solving problems instead of manufacturing fear and diverting taxpayer dollars. We deserve a Congress that lowers costs instead of inflaming divisions. We deserve immigration policies rooted in law, accountability, and humanity, not political theater and authoritarian tactics. We deserve fiscal responsibility. This reconciliation bill fails every one of those tests. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, reject this reconciliation bill, and reject this dangerous vision for our country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on January 22, the Trump administration forced the National Park Service to remove panels at Independence Hall National Park, the cradle of our liberty, telling an important chapter in George Washington's Presidency. Early in our Nation's history, Philadelphia was our Nation's Capital, and when Washington moved to the President's house near Independence Hall in 1790, he brought with him eight slaves from his Virginia plantation. Mr. Speaker, 10 years earlier, Pennsylvania had begun to abolish slavery, allowing slaves brought to the Commonwealth by residents of other States to claim their freedom if they lived there for 6 months or more. Therefore, from 1790 to 1797, President Washington rotated the slaves he brought to Philadelphia so that they could not establish the 6 months of residency which would have given them their freedom. The panels that President Trump ordered to be removed were the result of decades of scholarship and community advocacy to acknowledge and examine the paradox between slavery and freedom at the founding of our Nation. Telling the story of the slaves who lived in President Washington's home in Philadelphia is an expression of the American values of courage and honesty, acknowledging that our Founders and our Nation were not perfect at its inception, but that we must continually strive to form a more perfect union, to learn from the lessons of the past, lest we repeat them, and to acknowledge the humanity of those who were enslaved. Telling the history of George Washington's use of slave labor reflects a mature choice to own up to past imperfections and mistakes rather than erasing history and the people who lived it. The current White House has chosen a different path, seeking to erase our history and the people who lived it to fit a whitewashed and largely fictitious narrative. The White House says that the panels were removed to ``ensure accuracy, honesty, and alignment with shared national values'' and claims that the panels were aimed at ``demeaning our brave Founding Fathers.'' This White House doesn't want Americans to learn about the horrors of slavery, the wrongful internment of the Japanese Americans, the denial of civil rights to a host of people, or other abuses of our past because they don't want us to identify the abuses in our present. The panels at the President's house must go back. The city of Philadelphia has filed a lawsuit, and I am working with Congressmen Evans and Boyle, my colleagues in the Philadelphia delegation, to demand their return. However, that is not all that needs to happen. Our history, all of our history, the triumphs and horrors, must be acknowledged. Mr. Speaker, we all need to take notice and stand up to this administration's abuses, lawlessness, and attempts to erase facts and history because the ability to tell the truth is probably the most essential American value.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the Woman's Relief Corps began as a way for patriotic women to show their continued loyalty to the Union and support Civil War veterans. More than 140 years later, the organization continues to serve veterans of all wars and endeavors to ``encourage the spread of universal liberty and equal rights of everyone.'' I support the National Woman's Relief Corps' work, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 988, a bill to amend the charter of the National Woman's Relief Corps to formally change its principal office from Springfield, Illinois, to Murphysboro, Illinois, where I understand it is already located. It also moves its place of incorporation from Washington, D.C., to Illinois. The Woman's Relief Corps was formally organized in 1883 to preserve the memory of those who served in the Civil War and provide assistance to veterans, widows, and orphans. The National Woman's Relief Corps, as it is now known, was congressionally chartered on September 7, 1962, and continues to serve all of our veterans and their families. Congress has incorporated both public and private organizations since 1791. While organizations are free to incorporate under D.C. laws or the laws of any other State, many continue to seek charters from Congress for the related prestige, which can help expand membership and increase funding. More than 90 organizations hold congressional charters, and many of them have principal offices and places of incorporation outside D.C. Particularly as this administration has slashed programs that serve our veterans, gutted staff at the Veterans Crisis Line and Veterans Health Administration, and made drastic cuts to programs that veterans and their families rely upon, like SNAP and Medicaid, organizations that work to support our veterans, like the National Woman's Relief Corps, are more important than ever. Ultimately, this bill is a straightforward administrative fix, and I support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3497, the Medal of Sacrifice Act, which would award medals to honor those who lose their lives while serving as public safety officers. I encourage my colleagues to support it, too. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I endorse the comments of the sponsor of the bill. I totally agree we should be honoring the sacrifice of our public safety officers and it is right that that honoring should start from the top. I could not agree more that the President should be recognizing those public safety officers who have given all for this country, and I would put at the top of that list right now Brian Sicknick and Howard Liebengood. Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3497, the Medal of Sacrifice Act. Every year, over 100 sworn law enforcement officers and over 100 firefighters die while on duty or from hazardous conditions related to their service. While there are a number of different memorials for them, there is currently no memorial or medal that honors all public safety officers who die in the line of duty. From 2015 to 2024, the leading causes of death for law enforcement officers were: COVID-19, job-related illness, car accidents, and shootings. These causes are responsible for 94 percent of line of duty law enforcement deaths. I have had conversations with the families of fallen officers about their pain and struggles. They are why I worked to push forward a bipartisan bill, the Honoring Our Fallen Heroes Act, which expands disability benefits for the families of firefighters and other first responders who develop cancer because of their service. We were able to bring 179 colleagues together on a bipartisan basis to pass this measure, which was signed into law last December, to honor sacrifice not just in remembrance but through tangible support. In that same spirit, I think we can, and must, come together on a bipartisan basis to do more to keep officers and the communities they serve safe in the first place by: investing in public health, making our roads safer, and combating gun violence so we can keep weapons out of dangerous hands. Finally, in addition to this recognition, I can't really imagine what is going through the minds of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they say they support this bill when Republican leadership in the House still hasn't complied with the 2022 law passed by this body to honor the men and women of the Capitol Police and beyond who protected and defended us and our democracy on January 6, 2021. It is a stain upon this institution that the plaque dedicated to those officers, to their patriotism and sacrifice, has not yet been installed in the Capitol because this administration and its lapdogs in Congress think they can rewrite history to hide their betrayal and cowardice. Is it too much for the leadership of this body to have the decency to acknowledge that the Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police, and others saved the lives of Members of Congress on that day at great personal risk to themselves? Is it too much to say thank you? All that said, I support this bill to award medals of sacrifice to other public safety officers who lose their lives in service to their country and their communities, and I thank them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SCANLON

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate one of Philadelphia's great figures, Stephen Moylan. As we approach America's 250th anniversary, I find it fitting that we reflect on the individuals whose service and sacrifice helped lay its foundation. Born in Cork in 1737, Stephen Moylan emigrated to Philadelphia in 1767 after experiencing religious persecution. Like so many immigrants, Moylan came to America seeking freedom and opportunity and went on to play a critical role in the fight for independence. During the War for Independence, he served in several key positions, including as the second Quartermaster General of the Continental Army, Commander of the Fourth Continental Light Dragoons, and a trusted aide to General George Washington. Moylan is also credited as the first to have used the phrase ``United States of America'' reflecting his belief in unity among the colonies. Moylan was a man of many accomplishments. Notably, in 1771 he was elected the first president of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick in Philadelphia, an organization established on the principles of welcoming and supporting Irish immigrants. Today the organization continues his work by promoting Irish culture, education, and providing aid. On January 14, 2026, the Friendly Sons and Daughters of St. Patrick, in partnership with Irish America 250, co-hosted an event at Villanova University to honor Stephen Moylan. This kick-off commemorated the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and highlighted the Irish contributions to American History and culture. Ultimately, Stephen Moylan's life and legacy serve as a powerful reminder of the role Irish immigrants have played, and continue to play, shaping the American Republic. His service to Philadelphia, the Revolutionary cause, and to generations of Irish Americans reflects the long-lasting values of unity, service, and liberty shared among the Irish and American people.

Ms. SCANLON

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

Ms. SCANLON

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