{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2025-01-22-pt1-PgH268", "2025-01-22", 119, 1, null, null, "PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 471, FIX OUR FORESTS ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 5, LAKEN RILEY ACT", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H268", "H276", "[{\"name\": \"Austin Scott\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James P. McGovern\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Chip Roy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jeff Hurd\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Jared Huffman\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tim Walberg\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Teresa Leger Fernandez\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Mary Gay Scanlon\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"5\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"5\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"28\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"53\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"53\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"53\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"471\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"471\"}]", "171 Cong. Rec. H268", "Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 13 (Wednesday, January 22, 2025)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 22, 2025)]\n[House]\n[Pages H268-H276]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 471, FIX OUR FORESTS ACT, AND\n          PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 5, LAKEN RILEY ACT\n\n  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the\nCommittee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 53 and ask for its\nimmediate consideration.\n  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:\n\n                               H. Res. 53\n\n       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this\n     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule\n     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the\n     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of\n     the bill (H.R. 471) to expedite under the National\n     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest\n     management activities on National Forest System lands, on\n     public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land\n     Management, and on Tribal lands to return resilience to\n     overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and for other purposes.\n     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All\n     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.\n     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not\n     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair\n     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural\n     Resources or their respective designees. After general debate\n     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-\n     minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points\n     of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No\n     amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed\n     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this\n     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the\n     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member\n     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall\n     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally\n     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,\n     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject\n     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in\n     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such\n     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of\n     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report\n     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been\n     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered\n     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without\n     intervening motion except one motion to recommit.\n       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in\n     order to consider in the House the bill (S. 5) to require the\n     Secretary of Homeland Security to take into custody aliens\n     who have been charged in the United States with theft, and\n     for other purposes. All points of order against consideration\n     of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.\n     All points of order against provisions in the bill are\n     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered\n     on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage\n     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate\n     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking\n     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their\n     respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.\n\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for\n1 hour.\n  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate\nonly, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from\nMassachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as\nI may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time\nyielded is for the purpose of debate only.\n\n                             General Leave\n\n  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent\nthat all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their\nremarks.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from Georgia?\n  There was no objection.\n  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as\nI may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule,\nHouse Resolution 53, providing for consideration of two measures, the\nfirst of which is H.R. 471, the Fix Our Forests Act, to be considered\nunder a structured rule.\n  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and\ncontrolled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural\nResources, or their respective designees, provides for one motion to\nrecommit, and makes two amendments in order.\n  Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of S. 5, the Laken\nRiley Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate,\nequally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the\nCommittee on the Judiciary or their respective designees, and provides\nfor one motion to recommit.\n  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a rule on two timely pieces\nof legislation, beginning with H.R. 471, the bipartisan Fix Our Forests\nAct.\n  Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. Forest Service, more than 1\nbillion acres of forest land are at risk of wildfire. Further, nearly\none-fifth of all land overseen by the Federal Government is at high or\nvery high risk of wildfire.\n  This didn't happen overnight. It is the result of the buildup of\nbureaucratic red tape, burdensome regulations, and frivolous\nlegislation that have prevented forest management activities like\nthinning, prescribed burning, and mechanical treatment.\n  What we are left with are dangerous wildfires occurring at record\nlevels and intensities. It doesn't have to be this way, though, Mr.\nSpeaker.\n  The Fix Our Forests Act takes the proper steps toward restoring\nforest health, increasing resiliency to catastrophic wildfires, and\nprotecting communities. It does so by reforming NEPA to expedite\nenvironmental reviews, reducing frivolous lawsuits, and increasing the\npace and scale of forest restoration projects.\n  Additionally, H.R. 471 promotes Federal, State, Tribal, and local\ncollaboration through the creation of a new fireshed center. It will\nprovide agencies with new technologies and other critical tools which\nallow a quicker response to wildfires and the ability to implement the\nmost vital forest management projects immediately.\n  As we are unfortunately seeing more frequently, active forest\nmanagement techniques and a focus on forest health are needed now more\nthan ever. This bipartisan product is a step in the right direction.\n  Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for the consideration of S. 5,\nthe Laken Riley Act, another bipartisan piece of legislation.\n  Mr. Speaker, Laken Riley was murdered in my home State of Georgia in\nFebruary of 2024 by a Venezuelan man who was illegally present in the\nUnited States. He previously crossed our southern border in September\nof 2022, where he was paroled and released for further processing.\n  Between arriving here and committing his heinous act, the individual\nwas arrested in New York and then again in Georgia for stealing from a\nWalmart. At the time of Laken Riley's murder, there was a bench warrant\nout for his arrest for failing to show up in court.\n  Mr. Speaker, S. 5, the Laken Riley Act, as amended, requires the\nDepartment of Homeland Security to issue a detainer for any individual\ninadmissible to the United States who is charged with, is arrested for,\nconvicted of, admits to having committed, or admits to committing acts\nwhich constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft,\nlarceny, shoplifting, assault of a law enforcement officer, or any\ncrime that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person.\n  Additionally, the bill grants the attorney general of a State the\npower to hold future administrations accountable by providing standing\nto bring civil action against Federal officials for the failure to\nenforce immigration statutes, including mandatory detention, individual\nparole authority, and visa sanctions.\n  I commend my colleague from Georgia,  Mike Collins, for his work on\nthis legislation. I send my condolences to Laken Riley's family.\n  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to passing this rule. I look forward to\npassing this bill in the House for the third time and sending it to\nPresident Trump's desk.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30\nminutes.\n  Mr. Speaker, Republicans are bringing up a rule for two bills that\nwill be debated on the floor this week. I look forward to that debate.\n  I feel compelled to focus on this majority's screwed-up priorities\nwhich now include handing a get-out-of-free card to KKK members, Proud\nBoys, and other criminals who violently beat cops within an inch of\ntheir lives on January 6, 2021.\n\n[[Page H269]]\n\n  I thought this election was about lowering costs. What the hell\nhappened? I thought it was about securing the border. I thought it was\nabout making sure that our communities are safe, not whatever the hell\nthese pardons are. These pardons are sick. They are offensive. They are\nun-American.\n  I don't ever want to hear about law and order from the Republican\nside again, Mr. Speaker, when Republicans are letting criminals back on\nthe streets, criminals who beat cops and tried to overthrow our\ngovernment.\n  There were 1,500 criminals, including over 600, who were charged with\nviolently assaulting police officers. I am here to talk about that on\nthe floor because I think it is disgusting. I think it is a disgrace.\n  The people Trump let out broke through windows, beat up cops, and\ndesecrated this beautiful symbol of our country, a building, by the\nway, that terrorists tried to destroy on September 11, 2001. They\ncouldn't get here because they were stopped by the courageous people\nonboard flight 93.\n  The crowd that Donald Trump sent here breached the building, and they\nattacked it in a way that had never been done. It was a horrible, awful\nthing that happened that day.\n  I was in this Chamber. I was in this room. I was in your chair, Mr.\nSpeaker. I took over for Speaker Pelosi when she was evacuated. I was\none of the last people off the floor. I exited through those doors.\n  I saw the faces of the rioters smashing windows to try to get at us.\nThey wanted to kill people, kill police, kill us. I saw the walls they\ncovered with feces. I saw them use flagpoles to beat police officers.\n  I saw the fear in the eyes of my Republican colleagues as they\ncowered that day. I saw the bravery of law enforcement that protected\nus.\n  Mr. Speaker, how the hell do the Republicans walk into this place\nevery day? How does the majority look the police officers in the eye?\nHow does the other side do it, knowing the people who tried to kill\nthem will walk free, thanks to Donald Trump?\n  These were brave officers who tried to hold the line against a\nviolent mob. They were outnumbered, and they were overwhelmed because\nDonald Trump refused to lift a finger to help. The people he sent were\nnot peaceful protestors. They were criminals, violent, angry, vicious\npeople. They beat cops into the ground, leaving them bruised and\nbattered.\n  Donald Trump let them out of jail, and now he calls them heroes. He\nwants to invite them to the White House. We even had colleagues who\nwent to a D.C. jail to celebrate their release and complained they\nweren't being let out fast enough.\n  This is unbelievable. This is an insult to every police officer in\nthis country. It is an insult to the families of the people who died\nbecause of what happened and an insult to the millions of Americans who\nbelieve in law and order, democracy, and decency.\n\n                              {time}  1230\n\n  Trump is abandoning the blue. He could have chosen to let out only\nthe nonviolent offenders, but he let out people who beat the cops. That\ntells you all that you need to know.\n  I think my Republican colleagues owe it to us during this debate, the\nfirst time we are debating on the floor since the pardons, to come down\nand explain themselves. They owe America an explanation because the\npeople I am talking to think those pardons are shameful, disgusting,\nand wrong. Mr. Speaker, I will wait for an answer, and I reserve the\nbalance of my time.\n  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, we\nare here to discuss H.R. 471 and S. 5.\n  I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Roy).\n  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate the rule. The rule that\nwe have adopted will take up important legislation ensuring our forests\nare no longer such that they are going to catch fire, as we are seeing\nhappen in California, and, importantly, to deal with the Laken Riley\nAct.\n  This is the bill we passed off the House floor last year. It was\nrejected by the Democrat-led Senate. They refused to move it. We moved\nit last week here on the House floor and sent it over to this Senate,\nnow a Republican Senate, after the voters spoke. The Senate amended it,\nmade it, I believe, better, and sent it to the House, and now that\namended bill is on the floor of the United States House of\nRepresentatives.\n  Let's remember what we are talking about. This bill is named after\nLaken Riley. My friend from Georgia just discussed the facts involving\nthe unfortunate death of Laken Riley at the hands of someone here\nillegally, someone here who had committed crimes.\n  I had as my guest this weekend at the inauguration a woman named\nAlexis Nungaray, a wonderful woman from Houston, Texas, whose 13-year-\nold little girl was murdered by people released into our country last\nyear by the Biden administration.\n  Fortunately, those policies are ending under President Trump, but\nhere is the truth: Never again should any American, any Texan, any\nGeorgian, have to deal with what was thrust upon them by the Biden\nadministration in terms of the damage, despair, death, destruction,\nmurders, and rapes that were perpetrated against the people we\nrepresent.\n  This legislation would take a giant step forward to ensure that we\ncan stop any future administration that is not just refusing to enforce\nFederal law but is actually abusing Federal law to endanger our people,\nour citizens who we represent.\n  This legislation would simply say that we must detain some of the\nworst people who are here illegally and ensure that they are not\nreleased. We are talking about serious bodily injury. We are talking\nabout things that result in death, assaulting police officers. That is\nall in this legislation.\n  In addition, in this legislation is an important provision that I was\nproud to introduce with my friend Dan Bishop from North Carolina in the\nSUE Act to ensure that attorneys general can sue the Federal Government\nwhen the Federal Government is failing to do its job.\n  Imagine the ability of Texas, North Carolina, or Georgia, for my\ncolleagues to be able to say: Do you know what? Enough.\n  The Federal Government does not get to ignore its fundamental duty\nunder the Constitution to defend its citizens, and the attorneys\ngeneral of States ought to be able to stop the Federal Government when\nit is endangering our people. This law would do that.\n  This law would honor the memory of Laken Riley. It would honor the\nmemory of Jocelyn Nungaray. It would honor the memory of the countless\nAmericans who have lost their loved ones and have been dealing with the\nscourge of illegal immigration, which is endangering our people. I\nproudly support it, and I proudly support this rule.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, I think it takes a lot of nerve to come down here and\ntalk to us about law and order when the gentleman who just spoke was at\nthe D.C. jail celebrating the release of people who attacked and beat\ncops here in this Capitol, who almost killed them. Some died as a\nresult of their injuries.\n  I know my Republican friends don't want to defend these pardons\nbecause what the President did was indefensible. He couldn't release\nthese people who attacked our police officers quick enough. He couldn't\nrelease them quick enough.\n  The Speaker of this House was asked about January 6, about January 6\ndefendants like Daniel Rodriguez, who pled guilty to viciously injuring\na police officer with a weapon. The Speaker said: ``It is not my place.\nIt is the President's sole decision, and he made a decision, so I stand\nwith him on it.''\n  It is not your place? It is not your place? Mr. Speaker, it literally\nis your place. It is your place.\n  Mr. Speaker, you preside over this House. You hire the Sergeant at\nArms. You oversee the captain of the Capitol Police force. If it isn't\nyour place, then who the hell's place is it?\n  I have a radical idea. How about you stand with the officers who were\nbeaten and bloodied protecting you rather than stand with a reality TV\nwannabe dictator?\n  If your response to the question about the pardons of people who\nattacked and injured the officers that you oversee and are responsible\nfor is ``it is not my place,'' my question to you is this: Who do you\nwork for? Do\n\n[[Page H270]]\n\nyou think you work for President Trump?\n  I would suggest you do some soul searching, and while you are at it,\nmaybe reread the United States Constitution because you don't work for\nDonald Trump. You are the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and\nit damn sure is your place to have an opinion on the people who beat\nthe officers who protect you and this institution having no\nconsequences for beating men and women who protect this country.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DesJarlais). Members are reminded to\nrefrain from engaging in personalities toward the President and to\ndirect their remarks to the Chair.\n  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the\ngentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hurd).\n  Mr. HURD of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Westerman for his\ncommonsense piece of legislation that we are discussing this afternoon.\n  This is a new day in America. The days of forestry mismanagement are\ncoming to an end. For far too along, our national forests and the\ncommunities that surround them have been at the mercy of unelected\nFederal bureaucrats who have become beholden to misguided environmental\npolicies.\n  My district in Colorado is home to 6 of the State's 11 national\nforests. We have witnessed the destructive force of poor forestry\nmanagement firsthand. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960\nmandates that national forests be managed for multiple use. This\nincludes outdoor recreation and timber management.\n  Washington, D.C., has turned our national forests into national parks\nby bringing timber management to a standstill and setting the stage for\nthe terrible disasters like those we have seen in California. We can no\nlonger afford to ignore the safety and well-being of our communities.\n  The Fix Our Forests Act lets the Forest Service do its job to restore\nforest health, increase wildfire resiliency, and protect communities\nlike those in Colorado's Third District.\n  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this\nlegislation, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and on\nfinal passage.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will anybody on that side come down and\ndefend these pardons, which are indefensible?\n  In any event, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the\nprevious question, and I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in\norder amendment No. 1 to provide a permanent pay fix for Federal\nwildland firefighters. We tried to get this made in order in the Rules\nCommittee, but the Republicans said no to better benefits and a pay\nraise for the people who are fighting these fires.\n  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my\namendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,\nimmediately prior to the vote on the previous question.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from Massachusetts?\n  There was no objection.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from\nCalifornia (Mr. Huffman) to discuss this proposal.\n  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with Mr. McGovern's\nremarks condemning the unconscionable silence we hear across the aisle\nin the wake of these pardons of violent criminals, seditionist thugs\nwho should never be pardoned or celebrated. Yet, that is exactly what\nis happening even here in the building that they desecrated.\n  Turning to the bill at hand, one thing I hope we can agree on, which\nis clearly missing from this bill, is a permanent pay raise for Federal\nwildland firefighters. These brave men and women put everything on the\nline. They deserve to be paid fair wages for the long hours,\ndedication, and sacrifice they are putting out.\n  The good news is that under that Democratic leadership, Congress\napproved a pay raise in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The\nbad news is the authority to continue paying Federal wildland\nfirefighters the wages they deserve is about to run out because of\npartisan politics.\n  Thanks to Republicans, the entire Federal Government is operating\nunder a continuing resolution, a short-term patch that will expire\nMarch 23.\n  Good luck hiring a Federal firefighter right now, being underpaid to\nstart with and having a looming pay cut because of partisan politics\njust weeks away.\n  Fixing this should be an unequivocal bipartisan priority, and we have\nan opportunity to do it right now. That is why two of my Democratic\ncolleagues filed amendments to address these issues. Unfortunately, the\nRules Committee is refusing to allow a vote on the amendments from\nRepresentative Neguse and Representative Lee. That is a shame.\n  A permanent pay raise is not merely a matter of fairness. It is a\nrecognition of the invaluable service these frontline heroes provide.\nIt is an investment in their future, ensuring they can provide for\ntheir families and have peace of mind knowing their sacrifices are\nvalued.\n  Instead of rushing this so-called Fix Our Forests Act to the floor to\nexploit a disaster in Los Angeles, we should be working together to\naddress a real problem and doing right by our wildland firefighters.\n\n  In a few moments, Republicans will be moving the previous question to\nend debate on the rule. I urge my colleagues to vote against the\nprevious question because doing so, voting no, will allow Mr. Neguse's\nTim's Act to be brought forward instead of the Fix Our Forests Act,\nensuring that Federal wildland firefighters are getting the pay and\nbenefits they deserve.\n  That is the bill we should be considering instead of a bill that\nrolls back our environmental laws and does nothing to help Los Angeles.\n  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I, too, am concerned about\nsome of the pardons that were issued. I can't fathom what was going\nthrough President Biden's mind when he pardoned his family members and\nany of his political allies this past week. It is something that I\nthink does merit much more discussion on how someone just gives family\nmembers and political allies a blanket pardon when they had not yet\nbeen charged for the crimes they had committed.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr.\nWalberg).\n  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the\nunderlying bill, the Fix Our Forests Act.\n  Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I express my sincere condolences to\nthe families who have lost loved ones, homes, and history in the tragic\nfires in southern California. Our hearts break for them, and our\nprayers continue to be with them.\n  Today, we have an opportunity to help mitigate future forest fires\nand protect not only homes and communities but critical wildlife\nhabitat.\n  Proper forest management can, in fact, help prevent forest fires. If\nwe follow the science, as this legislation does, we can identify the\ntop areas of concern and take action to address those firesheds.\n  This bipartisan legislation will empower States and local, Tribal,\nand private partners to do critical wildfire prevention activities\nnecessary to prevent the tragic fires we have just seen recently and in\nrecent years. I also note that the legislation does not waive a single\nenvironmental law.\n  Mr. Speaker, I am a conservationist. Coming from the Great Lakes, the\nState of Michigan, I know the importance of clean air and clean water.\nWhat this bill does is streamline fragmented Federal programs and makes\nthe existing tools more flexible and efficient.\n  By passing this legislation, we can help protect millions of acres\nfrom the threat of wildfires, save lives and livelihoods and history,\nand protect wildlife habitat for generations to come.\n  Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Westerman for his leadership on this\ncritical legislation, and I urge support for the rule and the\nunderlying bill.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  The gentleman from Georgia just changed topics so quickly back to\nBiden that I have whiplash. I think I need a neck brace to be able to\nfollow his logic here.\n  Spare me your comparisons of Biden pardoning his family and Trump\npardoning violent criminals who attacked police officers on January 6.\n\n[[Page H271]]\n\n  Do you know what? You can be against both of those actions, but they\nare not the same and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same\nconversation.\n\n                              {time}  1245\n\n  Let me tell you about the people whom you continue to want to defend\nand who have been pardoned.\n  Here are some of the convicted felons that Trump set free on Monday:\n  Steve Cappuccio, convicted of six felonies, including assaulting a\npolice officer. He ripped off Metro Police Officer Daniel Hodges' gas\nmask. At one point during the assault he said: How do you like me now,\nmother f'er?\n  He was pardoned by Donald Trump.\n  David Dempsey, sentenced to 20 years. He stomped on police officers'\nheads, struck an officer in the head with a metal crutch, and attacked\npolice with pepper spray and broken pieces of furniture. He also\nattacked a fellow rioter who was trying to disarm him, and he has a\ndemonstrated history of political violence.\n  He was pardoned by Donald Trump.\n  Enrique Tarrio, sentenced to 22 years. He is a former national leader\nof the Proud Boys, a domestic terrorist far-right militia. He was found\nguilty of seditious conspiracy. He helped plan the January 6 attack and\nmade sure it was violent.\n  He was pardoned by Donald Trump.\n  Guy Reffitt, sentenced to 7 years and 3 months. He brought a gun, zip\nties, body armor, and a helmet to the Capitol, presumably to try to\ntake hostages in an attempt to keep Trump in office after he lost.\n  He was pardoned by Donald Trump.\n  Daniel Joseph ``DJ'' Rodriguez, sentenced to over 12 years. He\nrepeatedly tased Officer Mike Fanone, shocking him in the neck multiple\ntimes and causing him to lose consciousness and have a heart attack.\n  He was pardoned by Donald Trump.\n  Patrick McCaughey III, sentenced to 90 months. He assaulted police,\nbeat their faces and bodies with riot shields and batons that he stole\nfrom them.\n  He was pardoned by Donald Trump.\n  Peter Francis Stager, sentenced to 4 years and 4 months. He pled\nguilty to assaulting an officer with a deadly weapon. He is on video\ndeclaring: ``Every single one of those Capitol law enforcement\nofficers, death is the remedy.'' Those were his words: That is the only\nremedy they get.\n  He was pardoned by Donald Trump.\n  Julian Khater, sentenced to 6 years, attacked Officer Brian Sicknick\nwith pepper spray. Officer Sicknick died the next day after suffering\ntwo strokes.\n  Edward ``Jake'' Lang was on trial for 11 charges, including swinging\na baseball bat at officers. In addition to his January 6 charges, he\nbegan organizing a nationwide network of armed militias in all 50\nStates.\n  He was pardoned by Donald Trump.\n  Mr. Speaker, the criminals pardoned were not tourists. They were not\npeaceful. They were violent criminals.\n  Here is just one example: Daniel Ball's case was dismissed today, and\nhe was released from jail.\n  Why was he in jail?\n  He was being held in pretrial detention because of what a judge\ndescribed as ``some of the most violent and serious offenses of any of\nthe charges being brought against participants in the January 6\nevents.'' That includes hurling an explosive device into the lower west\nterrace tunnel of the Capitol, the scene of some of the most egregious\nviolence against police that day.\n  Some officers suffered from hearing loss for months.\n  Get this, Mr. Speaker: Mr. Ball has already been arrested again on\nFederal gun charges, and he was already a two-time convicted felon for\ndomestic violence battery by strangulation and resisting law\nenforcement with violence.\n  Yes, he was already arrested again. This is whom the President\npardoned. This is why my Republican friends are silent. It is because\nthis is indefensible.\n  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a\nPolitico article titled: ``Trump freed a January 6 defendant charged\nwith assaulting police. DOJ had him arrested again on a gun charge.''\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from Massachusetts?\n  There was no objection.\n\n                   [From the POLITICO, Jan. 22, 2025]\n\nTrump Freed a Jan. 6 Defendant Charged With Assualting Police. DOJ had\n                   him Arrested Again on a Gun Charge\n\n                            (By KYLE CHENEY)\n\n       A Jan. 6 defendant whose felony assault charges were\n     dismissed a day earlier was arrested Wednesday on federal gun\n     charges that have been pending for nearly two years in\n     Florida.\n       Daniel Ball, one of the hundreds charged with violence on\n     Jan. 6, 2021, aimed at police, was among the members of the\n     mob whose charges were dismissed at the behest of President\n     Donald Trump. Trump on Monday pardoned more than 1,000 people\n     who stormed the Capitol that day and ordered the Justice\n     Department to drop hundreds of pending cases.\n       Ball was being held in pretrial detention in Washington,\n     D.C., because of what a magistrate judge described as ``some\n     of the most violent and serious offenses of any of the\n     charges being brought against participants in the January 6\n     events.''\n       Among them, Ball is charged with hurling an ``explosive\n     device'' into the packed Lower West Terrace tunnel of the\n     Capitol, the scene of some of the most egregious violence\n     against police that day.\n       ``The explosion allegedly disoriented officers and caused\n     hearing loss--which for some of the officers lasted months,''\n     Magistrate Judge Robin Meriweather noted. ``Defendant also\n     allegedly threw a large piece of wood into the line of\n     officers protecting the Capitol.''\n       Ball's charges were dismissed by U.S. District Judge\n     Rudolph Contreras on Tuesday after Trump's directive.\n       But Ball's charges for being a felon in possession of a\n     firearm remained pending and unconnected to his Jan. 6 case.\n     According to that indictment, Ball has previously been\n     convicted of domestic violence battery by strangulation in\n     June 2017, resisting law enforcement with violence and\n     battery of a law enforcement officer in October 2021.\n       It's unclear if U.S. marshals executed the arrest warrant\n     on Ball prior to his release on the Jan. 6 charges. However,\n     it's the first docketed federal criminal case in Washington\n     since Trump's inauguration.\n\n  Mr. McGOVERN. All these people were pardoned, and not a word from the\nother side.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as\nI may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, I don't have a whole number, the total number, but how\nmany murderers had their sentences commuted by then-President Joe\nBiden?\n  Do you know? How many was it?\n  Let's see, Biden commuted the sentences for 2,500 drug offenders and\nclemency for 37 of the 40 people on death row, 1 of whom shot two FBI\nagents , if I am not mistaken.\n  So you are pretty quick to point the finger at the gentleman who was\nthe 45th and now the 47th President of the United States. I would\nsuggest to you that Donald Trump is the President of the United States\ntoday and sitting in the White House today because your policies are so\nbad because you put illegal immigrants and their rights above the\nrights of American citizens.\n  So, again, Biden commuted a lot of sentences for a lot of drug\noffenders and a lot of people who committed murder. So I don't think\nyou should be pointing the finger at what the 47th President of the\nUnited States did when the 46th President of the United States is the\none who let people who shot FBI agents out.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks\nto the Chair.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, the best we get from the gentleman is whataboutism. He\ncan criticize President Biden, but he can't bring himself to criticize\nPresident Trump. He is afraid, and that is the problem.\n  All my Republican friends are in fear that if they question anything\nthat this guy does that somehow they themselves will be punished.\n  However, he didn't even get his facts right on the Peltier issue. The\nformer U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Mr. Peltier wrote in a letter to\nPresident Biden: ``The prosecution and continued incarceration of Mr.\nPeltier was and is unjust.''\n  He also said: ``I believe that a grant of executive clemency would\nserve the best interest of justice and the best interest of our\ncountry.''\n  Again, this is coming from the man who prosecuted him.\n  He also said that we were not able to prove that Mr. Peltier\npersonally committed any of the offenses that happened on the Pine\nRidge Reservation.\n\n[[Page H272]]\n\n  Contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with the Nation's seeing the criminals\nthat Trump pardoned assault cops on live TV.\n  Please, I ask my friends across the aisle: Find me one prosecutor of\none of the cop beaters whom Trump pardoned who regret their conviction.\n  Which one of Trump's pardoned criminals have already served nearly 50\nyears in prison?\n  By the way, Peltier is 80 years old, and he is dying. He was not\npardoned, by the way. The gentleman is wrong on that. His sentence was\ncommuted so he could die at home with an ankle bracelet on. This was\ndone only after faith and human rights leaders like the Dalai Lama,\nNelson Mandela, and Pope Francis begged for release for years.\n  So to say that this is remotely the same is a joke.\n  Why can't my Republican friends just say that what Trump did by\npardoning vicious, violent criminals was wrong?\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico\n(Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a member of the Rules Committee.\n  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, we should absolutely hold\nimmigrants accountable when they commit a crime, especially when it is\nagainst a law enforcement officer. However, there are already existing\nlaws for the detention and deportation of immigrants who commit violent\ncrimes.\n  What we are talking about today is that we must hold convicted felons\naccountable for attacking our very own Capitol Police. In this very\nbuilding, January 6 insurrectionists brutally attacked our Capitol\nPolice and other law enforcement officers. More than 140 cops suffered\ninjuries and went to the hospital. Five police officers died. President\nTrump just pardoned the violent thugs who were convicted of those\nattacks. It is ``shameless,'' ``sin verguenza,'' as we say in Spanish.\nIf Republicans were truly concerned about attacks on law enforcement,\nthey would denounce those pardons.\n  We just heard about the violence that was inflicted and about the\nviolent offenders who committed them. I am asking my Republican\ncolleagues to also keep in mind the faces and the names of those who\nwere brutally attacked.\n  When the majority walked into this building and they walked past\nthose Capitol Police who are protecting them today, do they tell them:\nGood morning?\n  They should also tell them: I am sorry. I am sorry that my President\npardoned the people who beat you. I am sorry, and I denounce those\nattacks because I honor you.\n  However, they do not seem to have the courage to say I am sorry to\nthose police officers.\n  It is hypocrisy to say that they care about law enforcement if they\ndon't denounce those pardons.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the\ngentlewoman from New Mexico.\n  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Those violent criminals whom Trump described as\npeaceful and loving are being released into our communities. We have\nseen the videos of the attacks, the shouts, and the pounding of Officer\nFanone, and so many others, and their cries for help. It was on video.\nAmericans remember it.\n  I ask my colleagues to remember it and to see those videos. The\nconvicted attackers were not peaceful.\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to denounce the pardons and to vote\nagainst this rule.\n  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this rule is about the\nLaken Riley Act and the Fix Our Forests Act. I hope people vote for it,\nand I reserve the balance of my time.\n\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, not a word about what happened in this place on January\n6. They just can't bring themselves to do it.\n  Mr. Speaker, I have a question, and that is: Why won't you install\nthe plaque honoring the brave members of law enforcement who protected\nus on January 6?\n  A lot of my colleagues don't know this, but Congress actually passed\na law, Public Law 117-103, on requiring the plaque to be installed on\nthe west front of the Capitol before March 15, 2023.\n  So for 21 months now, almost 2 years, this Speaker has refused to\nhonor the Capitol Police and other law enforcement by installing the\nplaque that we all voted for.\n  I know it exists, Mr. Speaker. I have actually seen photos of it, so\nI know it exists. I have seen photos.\n  Why the delay?\n  Why won't you put it up, Mr. Speaker?\n  I think I know why. It is because Republicans don't want to honor the\npolice who were hurt and who died after that attack.\n  Maybe the gentleman from Georgia can explain why the plaque is yet to\nbe installed. I won't hold my breath, but instead let me read the\nplaque, Mr. Speaker, so Speaker Johnson and others know what it says.\n  It says: ``On behalf of a grateful Congress, this plaque honors the\nextraordinary individuals who bravely protected and defended this\nsymbol of democracy on January 6, 2021. Their heroism will never be\nforgotten.''\n  Because Republicans will not, I want to take a moment to thank all\nthe agencies that are listed on this plaque who are being disrespected\nby this leadership by refusing to honor them.\n  I want to say thank you to: the United States Capitol Police. I also\nwant to thank the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of\nColumbia; Arlington County Police Department in Virginia; Fairfax\nCounty Police Department in Virginia; Maryland Department of State\nPolice; Metro Transit Police Department; Metropolitan Washington\nAirports Authority, Montgomery County Department of Police in Maryland;\nNew Jersey State Police; Prince George's County Police Department in\nMaryland; Prince William County Police Department in Virginia; Virginia\nState Police; Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Explosives; Department\nof Health and Human Services; Department of Homeland Security; Federal\nBureau of Investigation; National Guard Bureau; Pentagon Force\nProtection Agency; United States Marshals Service; United States Park\nPolice; and United States Secret Service.\n  I say thank you to all of the officers from all of those agencies who\nwere here that day to protect our country and to protect all of us. I\nappreciate you, and you should know that a lot of Americans have your\nback, even if this President and the Republicans do not.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to thank all\nof the law enforcement and first responders who protect this country on\na daily basis, and, Mr. Speaker, we know the polls show that a majority\nof them voted for Donald Trump.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that to\nsay what he just said but not reference what happened that day and not\nacknowledge the pain that has caused so many families and so many\npeople whom we work with every day to protect us, I have to say that is\na little bit much.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania\n(Ms. Scanlon), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.\n\n                              {time}  1300\n\n  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing but unsurprising that\nHouse Republicans have made it their top priority in their new Congress\nto pass a bill, H.R. 28, designed to generate headlines rather than\nsolve actual problems.\n  Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on the serious flaws in this bill several\ntimes, including last night in the Rules Committee, but it is worth\nnoting that since the House last considered this bill, it has been\naltered with an increasingly ironic amendment.\n  The amendment added mandatory imprisonment for people accused of\nassaulting a law enforcement officer. I say this amendment is ironic\nbecause yesterday, just hours after taking the oath of office,\nPresident Trump granted mass pardons for over 1,200 January 6 MAGA\nrioters who had been convicted. President Trump also ordered the\ndismissal of cases of hundreds more, including hundreds who assaulted\npolice officers with bats, poles,\n\n[[Page H273]]\n\nbear spray, explosives, and other weapons.\n  Over 140 officers were hurt that day, with injuries including crushed\nspinal disks, traumatic brain injuries, heart attacks, and strokes,\nwhile they bravely defended the Capitol and those who work here. Some\nlost their lives or became permanently disabled after sustaining\ninjuries and horrific trauma at the hands of fellow citizens during the\nMAGA attack on January 6, 2021.\n  In issuing those pardons, President Trump put the Presidential seal\nof approval on political violence, so long as it supports him, and even\nif it is directed against law enforcement.\n  Just to be clear, there was no case-by-case review of these\nconvictions. This is a blanket pardon. We are already seeing the fruits\nof that incredibly dangerous act of pardoning the people who attacked\nthe Constitution, this Capitol, and the police officers and people\nwithin it.\n  Among those attackers are dangerous felons who are not chastened or\nremorseful or reformed. They feel emboldened. One of them, Daniel\nCharles Ball, has just been rearrested, one day after his January 6\ncase was dismissed, on new weapons charges.\n  Another, the infamous MAGA supporter known as the QAnon Shaman,\ntweeted Monday: I got a pardon baby. Thank you, President Trump. Now I\nam going to buy some motha f'ing guns.\n  These pardons show an utter disrespect for law enforcement, our\ncriminal justice system, and the rule of law. They have been rightly\ncondemned by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the\nFraternal Order of Police, among other police organizations, but\nvirtually every House Republican has turned their backs on our police\nand cowered in silence rather than denounce the shameful decision to\nput those criminals back on our streets.\n  Mr. Speaker, I continue to oppose this rule and this bill.\n  I seek unanimous consent to include in the Record the Joint\nInternational Association of Chiefs of Police and The Fraternal Order\nof Police Statement on the Recent Presidential Pardons dated January\n21, 2025.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentlewoman from Pennsylvania?\n  There was no objection.\n\n      Joint IACP-FOP Statement on the Recent Presidential Pardons\n\n       The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)\n     and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) have had long\n     standing and positive relationships with both President Trump\n     and President Biden and have greatly appreciated their\n     support of the policing profession. However, the IACP and FOP\n     are deeply discouraged by the recent pardons and commutations\n     granted by both the Biden and Trump Administrations to\n     individuals convicted of killing or assaulting law\n     enforcement officers. The IACP and FOP firmly believe that\n     those convicted of such crimes should serve their full\n     sentences.\n       Crimes against law enforcement are not just attacks on\n     individuals or public safety--they are attacks on society and\n     undermine the rule of law. Allowing those convicted of these\n     crimes to be released early diminishes accountability and\n     devalues the sacrifices made by courageous law enforcement\n     officers and their families.\n       When perpetrators of crimes, especially serious crimes, are\n     not held fully accountable, it sends a dangerous message that\n     the consequences for attacking law enforcement are not\n     severe, potentially emboldening others to commit similar acts\n     of violence.\n       The IACP and FOP call on policymakers, judicial\n     authorities, and community leaders to ensure that justice is\n     upheld by enforcing full sentences, especially in cases\n     involving violence against law enforcement. This approach\n     reaffirms our commitment to the rule of law, public safety,\n     and the protection of those who risk their lives for our\n     communities.\n\n  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my\ntime.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is\nremaining.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5\nminutes remaining.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the\nRecord an article from The Wall Street Journal today entitled: ``Trump\nPardons the Jan. 6 Cop Beaters.''\n  The editorial reads: ``Law and order? Back the blue? What happened to\nthat GOP?''\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from Massachusetts?\n  There was no objection.\n\n             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 21, 2025]\n\n  Trump Pardons the Jan. 6 Cop Beaters--Law and Order? Back the Blue?\n                       What happened to that GOP?\n\n                        (By The Editorial Board)\n\n       Republicans are busy denouncing President Biden's pre-\n     emptive pardons for his family and political allies, and\n     deservedly so. But then it's a shame you don't hear many, if\n     any, ruing President Trump's proclamation to pardon\n     unconditionally nearly all of the people who rioted at the\n     U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. This includes those convicted\n     of bludgeoning, chemical spraying, and electroshocking police\n     to try to keep Mr. Trump in power. Now he's springing them\n     from prison.\n       This is a rotten message from a President about political\n     violence done on his behalf, and it's a bait and switch.\n     Asked about Jan. 6 pardons in late November, Mr. Trump\n     projected caution. ``I'm going to do case-by-case, and if\n     they were nonviolent, I think they've been greatly\n     punished,'' he said. ``We're going to look at each individual\n     case.''\n       Taking cues from the boss, last week Vice President JD\n     Vance drew a clear line: ``If you committed violence on that\n     day, obviously you shouldn't be pardoned.''\n       So much for that. The President's clemency proclamation\n     commutes prison sentences to time served for 14 named people,\n     including prominent leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath\n     Keepers, who were organized and ready for violence. Then Mr.\n     Trump tries to wipe Jan. 6 clean, with ``a full, complete and\n     unconditional pardon to all other individuals.'' The conceit\n     is that there are hundreds of polite Trump supporters who\n     ended up in the wrong place that day and have since rotted in\n     jail.\n       Out of roughly 1,600 cases filed by the feds, more than a\n     third included accusations of ``assaulting, resisting, or\n     impeding law enforcement.'' The U.S. Attorney's office said\n     it declined ``hundreds'' of prosecutions against people whose\n     only offense was entering restricted grounds near the\n     Capitol. Of the 1,100 sentences handed down by this year,\n     more than a third didn't involve prison time. The rioters who\n     did get jail often were charged with brutal violence,\n     including:\n       Daniel Joseph ``DJ'' Rodriguez, sentenced to 151 months,\n     who can be seen on video, federal prosecutors said, deploying\n     an ``electroshock weapon'' against a policeman who was\n     dragged out of the defensive line, by ``plunging it into the\n     officer's neck.'' The night before, he promised in a MAGA\n     chat group: ``There will be blood.''\n       William Lewis, given 37 months, ``sprayed streams of Wasp\n     and Hornet Killer spray at multiple police officers on four\n     distinct occasions,'' forcing several to flee the line and\n     ``seek treatment for their eyes.''\n       Isreal James Easterday, 30 months, blasted a cop ``in the\n     face with pepper spray at point-blank range,'' after which\n     the officer ``collapsed and temporarily lost consciousness,\n     which enabled another rioter to steal his baton.''\n       Thomas Andrew Casselman, 40 months, hit multiple officers\n     ``near their faces'' with pepper spray. His later internet\n     searches included, ``The statute of limitations for assault\n     on a police officer.''\n       Curtis Davis, 24 months, punched two police officers in the\n     head. That night he filmed a video of his fist, in which he\n     bragged: ``Them knuckles right there, from one of those m--\n     faces at the Capitol.''\n       Ronald Colton McAbee, 70 months, hit a cop while wearing\n     ``reinforced brass knuckle gloves,'' and he held one down on\n     the ground as ``other rioters assailed the officer for over\n     20 seconds,'' causing a concussion.\n       Michael Joseph Foy, 40 months, brought a hockey stick with\n     a TRUMP 2020 flag attached, which he swung ``over his head\n     and downward at police officers as if he were chopping\n     wood.''\n       There are more like this, which everyone understood on Jan.\n     6 and shortly afterward. ``There is nothing patriotic about\n     what is occurring on Capitol Hill,'' one GOP official\n     tweeted. ``This is 3rd world style anti-American anarchy.''\n     That was Marco Rubio, now Mr. Trump's Secretary of State. He\n     was right. What happened that day is a stain on Mr. Trump's\n     legacy. By setting free the cop beaters, the President adds\n     another.\n\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman thanking, in general, our law\nenforcement officials, but it is troubling that he can't bring himself\nto address what happened that day. My Republican friends are afraid to\ndebate and to discuss what happened on that day. It is so disappointing\nin so many ways.\n  Mr. Speaker, January 6 was not a tourist day. It was a horrific\nattack on the police who protect our country. I saw with my own eyes\nthe officers with blood on their faces, battered and bruised from\nfighting off a violent mob. So many of them had to go to the hospital\nto get stitches and to get medical care. They were severely wounded.\n  I will never forget the smell of tear gas or the horror on people's\nfaces as we were rushed out of this Chamber. I watched from the\nSpeaker's chair as\n\n[[Page H274]]\n\nRepublicans cowered and hid for their lives that day, letting the\nCapitol Police run to the front lines to protect them.\n  On Monday, Republicans let out the violent political extremists who\ndid all of this. Republicans let them back out onto the streets.\n  Trump called them patriots. He called them hostages. There is nothing\npatriotic about beating police officers with flagpoles, Mr. Speaker.\n  The patriots were the law enforcement officers who protected this\ninstitution. There is nothing patriotic about the KKK, the Oath\nKeepers, or the Proud Boys. Trump pardoned them.\n  There is nothing patriotic about viciously assaulting police\nofficers. There is nothing patriotic about bashing heads and breaking\ninto the Capitol Building because of a deranged fantasy about\noverthrowing the government. There is nothing patriotic about any of\nthat, but Donald Trump doesn't care. He pardoned them because he only\ncares about himself.\n  Mr. Speaker, where is your outrage over any of this? Where is your\nspine? To be silent after these pardons is terrible, and it speaks for\nitself.\n  As for me, I stand with the police officers who were here that day. I\nstand with the officers who were trying to maintain law and order. I\nstand with the people who are disgusted that Donald Trump is opening\nthe doors and letting out the criminals who attacked them.\n  I don't hear a single Republican brave enough to come to this floor\nand condemn these pardons. I don't hear a single one. It is cowardice.\nIt is hypocrisy. They are rewarding political violence and setting the\nstage for much, much worse things to come.\n  My colleagues heard Representative Scanlon. Some of them are bragging\nabout how they are going out to buy more guns. What is that about?\nViolent, dangerous people who beat cops, who tried to kill Members of\nthis body, and who tried to kill our staff were let back out onto the\nstreets by Donald Trump.\n  It is a disgrace. The Speaker should be ashamed. The Speaker owns\nthis now. The Speaker knows that, and the law enforcement officers of\nthis country know it, too. They are watching, and they will remember.\n  There is a great conservative, Edmund Burke, who once said that all\nthat it takes for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do\nnothing, to be silent.\n  Well, I, for one, am not going to be silent. We are going to continue\nto talk about this until we get it right in this country and this\nChamber.\n  I can't speak for my friends on the other side of the aisle, but if\ntoday is any indication, Republicans are just hoping and praying that\nit goes away and that everybody forgets. We will never forget what\nhappened here on January 6. The American people won't ever forget.\n  The American people did not vote for this. They did not vote to let\nthese violent criminals back onto the streets.\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my\ntime.\n  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance\nof my time to close.\n  Mr. Speaker, this vote is on the rule to advance H.R. 471, the Fix\nOur Forests Act; and S. 5, the Laken Riley Act, regardless of what you\nhave listened to if you have been watching this over the last hour.\n  This week, the House has the ability to advance significant\nlegislation in the House of Representatives. That is our job.\n  The Fix Our Forests Act can mark a return to active forest management\nand return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forested lands, and I\nwould be willing to bet that that piece of legislation probably passes\nin a bipartisan manner.\n  The Laken Riley Act will ensure that criminals who illegally cross\nour borders and endanger our communities are detained and deported\nwhile also giving States the ability to bring civil action against any\nFederal official in the future should they refuse to enforce our\ncountry's immigration laws and put American citizens at risk by\nrefusing to do so.\n  Again, I thank the law enforcement officers, the Capitol Police\nspecifically, and all those who take care of us on a daily basis.\n  I send my condolences to Laken Riley's family.\n  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to voting ``yes'' on this bill and\nsending it to President Trump's desk for his signature. I urge my\ncolleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question,\n``yes'' on the rule, and then I hope Members will vote ``yes'' on the\nlegislation. The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as\nfollows:\n\n  An Amendment to H. Res. 53 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts\n\n       At the end of the resolution, add the following:\n       Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this\n     resolution, the amendment specified in section 4 shall be in\n     order as though printed as the last amendment of the report\n     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution if\n     offered by Representative Lee of Nevada or a designee. That\n     amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided\n     and controlled by the proponent and opponent.\n       Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as\n     follows:\n       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert:\n\n            TITLE V--RATES OF PAY FOR WILDLAND FIREFIGHTERS\n\n     SEC. 501. SPECIAL BASE RATES OF PAY FOR WILDLAND\n                   FIREFIGHTERS.\n\n       (a) In general.--Subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5,\n     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section\n     5332 the following:\n\n     ``Sec. 5332A. SPECIAL BASE RATES OF PAY FOR WILDLAND\n                   FIREFIGHTERS\n\n       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--\n       ``(1) the term `firefighter' means an employee who--\n       ``(A) is a firefighter within the meaning of section 8331\n     (21) or section 8401(14);\n       ``(B) in the case of an employee who holds a supervisory or\n     administrative position and is subject to subchapter III of\n     chapter 83, but who does not qualify to be considered a\n     firefighter within the meaning of section 8331 (21), would\n     otherwise qualify if the employee had transferred directly to\n     that position after serving as a firefighter within the\n     meaning of that section;\n       ``(C) in the case of an employee who holds a supervisory or\n     administrative position and is subject to chapter 84, but who\n     does not qualify to be considered a firefighter within the\n     meaning of section 8401(14), would otherwise qualify if the\n     employee had transferred directly to that position after\n     performing duties described in section 8401(14)(A) for at\n     least 3 years; or\n       ``(D) in the case of an employee who is not subject to\n     subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84, holds a position\n     that the Office of Personnel Management determines would\n     satisfy subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) if the employee were\n     subject to subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84;\n       ``(2) the term `General Schedule base rate' means an annual\n     rate of basic pay established under section 5332 before any\n     additions, such as a locality-based comparability payment\n     under section 5304 or 5304a or a special rate supplement\n     under section 5305;\n       ``(3) the term `special base rate' means an annual rate of\n     basic pay payable to a wildland firefighter, before any\n     additions or reductions, that replaces the General Schedule\n     base rate otherwise applicable to the wildland firefighter\n     and that is administered in the same manner as a General\n     Schedule base rate; and\n       ``(4) the term `wildland firefighter' means a firefighter--\n       ``(A) who is employed by the Forest Service or the\n     Department of the Interior; and\n       ``(B) the duties of the position of whom primarily relate\n     to fires occurring in forests, range lands, or other\n     wildlands, as opposed to structural fires.\n       ``(b) Special base rates of pay.--\n       ``(1) Entitlement to Special Rate.--Notwithstanding section\n     5332, a wildland firefighter is entitled to a special base\n     rate at grades 1 through 15, which shall--\n       ``(A) replace the otherwise applicable General Schedule\n     base rate for the wildland firefighter;\n       ``(B) be basic pay for all purposes, including the purpose\n     of computing a locality-based comparability payment under\n     section 5304 or 5304a; and\n       ``(C) be computed as described in paragraph (2) and\n     adjusted at the time of adjustments in the General Schedule.\n       ``(2) Computation.--\n       ``(A) In general.--The special base rate for a wildland\n     firefighter shall be derived by increasing the otherwise\n     applicable General Schedule base rate for the wildland\n     firefighter by the following applicable percentage for the\n     grade of the wildland firefighter and rounding the result to\n     the nearest whole dollar:\n       ``(i) For GS-1, 42 percent.\n       ``(ii) For GS-2, 39 percent.\n       ``(iii) For GS-3, 36 percent.\n       ``(iv) For GS-4, 33 percent.\n       ``(v) For GS-5, 30 percent.\n       ``(vi) For GS-6, 27 percent.\n       ``(vii) For GS-7, 24 percent.\n       ``(viii) For GS-8, 21 percent.\n       ``(ix) For GS-9, 18 percent.\n       ``(x) For GS-10, 15 percent.\n       ``(xi) For GS-11, 12 percent.\n       ``(xii) For GS-12, 9 percent.\n       ``(xiii) For GS-13, 6 percent.\n       ``(xiv) For GS-14, 3 percent.\n       ``(xv) For GS-15, 1.5 percent.\n\n[[Page H275]]\n\n       ``(B) Hourly, Daily, Weekly, or Biweekly Rates.--When the\n     special base rate with respect to a wildland firefighter is\n     expressed as an hourly, daily, weekly, or biweekly rate, the\n     special base rate shall be computed from the appropriate\n     annual rate of basic pay derived under subparagraph (A) in\n     accordance with the rules under section 5504(b).''.\n       ``(b) Amendment to Prevailing Rate Determinations.--Section\n     5343 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at\n     the end the following:\n       ``(g) (1) For a prevailing rate employee described in\n     section 5342(a)(2)(A) who is a wildland firefighter, as\n     defined in section 5332a(a), the Secretary of Agriculture or\n     the Secretary of the Interior (as applicable) shall increase\n     the wage rates of that employee by an amount (determined at\n     the sole and exclusive discretion of the applicable Secretary\n     after consultation with the other Secretary) that is\n     generally consistent with the percentage increases given to\n     wildland firefighters in the General Schedule under section\n     5332a.\n       ``(2) An increased wage rate under paragraph (1) shall be\n     basic pay for the same purposes as the wage rate otherwise\n     established under this section.\n       ``(3) An increase under this subsection may not cause the\n     wage rate of an employee to increase to a rate that would\n     produce an annualized rate in excess of the annual rate for\n     level IV of the Executive Schedule.''.\n       ``(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for\n     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,\n     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section\n     5332 the following:\n       ``5332a. Special base rates of pay for wildland\n     firefighters.''.\n       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section\n     shall take effect on the first day of the first applicable\n     pay period beginning on or after October 1, 2025, or the date\n     of enactment of this Act, whichever is later.\n       (e) Applicability of Certain Provisions of Infrastructure\n     Investment and Jobs Act.--Notwithstanding section\n     40803(d)(4)(B) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act\n     (16 U.S.C. 6592(d)(4)(B)) and authority provided under the\n     headings ``WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT--FOREST SERVICE'' and\n     ``WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'' in\n     fiscal years 2024 and 2025, the salary increase in such\n     section and under such headings shall not apply to the\n     positions described in such section 40803(d)(4)(B) for\n     service performed on or after the effective date described in\n     subsection (d) of this section.\n\n     SEC. 502. WILDLAND FIRE INCIDENT RESPONSE PREMIUM PAY.\n\n       (a) In general.--Subchapter V of chapter 55 of title 5,\n     United Sates Code, is amended by inserting after section\n     5545b the following:\n\n     ``Sec. 5545C. INCIDENT RESPONSE PREMIUM PAY FOR EMPLOYEES\n                   ENGAGED IN WILDLAND FIREFIGHTING\n\n       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--\n       ``(1) the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--\n       ``(A) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of\n     Representatives;\n       ``(B) the Committee on Oversight and Accountability of the\n     House of Representatives;\n       ``(C) the Committee on Agriculture of the House of\n     Representatives;\n       ``(D) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of\n     Representatives;\n       ``(E) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;\n       ``(F) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental\n     Affairs of the Senate;\n       ``(G) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the\n     Senate; and\n       ``(H) the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry\n     of the Senate;\n       ``(2) the term `covered employee' means an employee of the\n     Forest Service or the Department of the Interior who is--\n       ``(A) a wildland firefighter, as defined in section\n     5332a(a); or\n       ``(B) certified by the applicable agency to perform\n     wildland fire incident-related duties during the period that\n     employee is deployed to respond to a qualifying incident;\n       ``(3) the term `incident response premium pay' means pay to\n     which a covered employee is entitled under subsection (c);\n       ``(4) the term `prescribed fire incident' means a wildland\n     fire originating from a planned ignition in accordance with\n     applicable laws, policies, and regulations to meet specific\n     objectives;\n       ``(5) the term `qualifying incident'--\n       ``(A) means--\n       ``(i) a wildfire incident, a prescribed fire incident, or a\n     severity incident; or\n       ``(ii) an incident that the Secretary of Agriculture or the\n     Secretary of the Interior determines is similar in nature to\n     an incident described in clause (i); and\n       ``B) does not include an initial response incident that is\n     contained within 36 hours; and\n       ``(6) the term `severity incident' means an incident in\n     which a covered employee is prepositioned in an area in which\n     conditions indicate there is a high risk of wildfires.\n       ``(b) ELIGIBILITY.--A covered employee is eligible for\n     incident response premium pay under this section if--\n       ``(1) the covered employee is deployed to respond to a\n     qualifying incident; and\n       ``(2) the deployment described in paragraph (1) is--\n       ``(A) outside of the official duty station of the covered\n     employee; or\n       ``(B) within the official duty station of the covered\n     employee and the covered employee is assigned to an incident-\n     adjacent fire camp or other designated field location.\n       ``(c) Entitlement to Incident Response Premium Pay.--\n       ``(1) In general.--A covered employee who satisfies the\n     conditions under subsection (b) is entitled to premium pay\n     for the period in which the covered employee is deployed to\n     respond to the applicable qualifying incident.\n       ``(2) Computation.--\n       ``(A) Formula.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C),\n     premium pay under paragraph (1) shall be paid to a covered\n     employee at a daily rate of 450 percent of the hourly rate of\n     basic pay of the covered employee for each day that the\n     covered employee satisfies the requirements under subsection\n     (b), rounded to the nearest whole cent\n       ``(B) Limitation.--Premium pay under this subsection may\n     not be paid.\n       ``(i) with respect to a covered employee for whom the\n     annual rate of basic pay is greater than that for step 10 of\n     GS-10, at a daily rate that exceeds the daily rate\n     established under subparagraph (A) for step 10 of GS-10; or\n       ``(ii) to a covered employee in a total amount that exceeds\n     $9,000 in any calendar year.\n       ``(C) Adjustments.--\n       ``(i) Assessment.--The Secretary of Agriculture and the\n     Secretary of the Interior shall assess the difference between\n     the average total amount of compensation that was paid to\n     covered employees, by grade, in fiscal years 2023 and 2024.\n       ``(ii) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date that\n     is 1 year after the effective date of this section, the\n     Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior\n     shall jointly publish a report on the results of the\n     assessment conducted under clause (i).\n       ``(iii) Administrative Actions.--After publishing the\n     report required under clause (ii), the Secretary of\n     Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, in\n     consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel\n     Management, may, in the sole and exclusive discretion of the\n     Secretaries acting jointly, administratively adjust the\n     amount of premium pay paid under this subsection (or take\n     other administrative action) to ensure that the average\n     annual amount of total compensation paid to covered\n     employees, by grade, is more consistent with such amount that\n     was paid to those employees in fiscal year 2023.\n       ``(iv) Congressional Notification.--Not later than 3 days\n     after an adjustment made, or other administrative action\n     taken, under clause (iii) becomes final, the Secretary of\n     Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall jointly\n     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a\n     notification regarding that adjustment or other\n     administrative action, as applicable.\n       ``(d) Treatment of incident response premium pay.--Incident\n     response premium pay under this section--\n       ``(1) is not considered part of the basic pay of a covered\n     employee for any purpose;\n       ``(2) may not be considered in determining a covered\n     employee's lump-sum payment for accumulated and accrued\n     annual leave under section 5551 or section 5552;\n       ``(3) may not be used in determining pay under section 8114\n     (relating to compensation for work injuries);\n       ``(4) may not be considered in determining pay for hours of\n     paid leave or other paid time off during which the premium\n     pay is not payable; and\n       ``(5) shall be disregarded in determining the minimum wage\n     and overtime pay to which a covered employee is entitled\n     under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et\n     seq.).''.\n       ``(b) Amendments to premium pay provisions.--Subchapter V\n     of chapter 55 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--\n       (1) in section 5544--\n       ``(A) by amending the section heading to read as follows:\n     ``Wage-board overtime, Sunday rates, and other premium pay'';\n     and\n       ``(B) by adding at the end the following:\n       ``(d) A prevailing rate employee described in section\n     5342(a)(2)(A) shall receive incident response premium pay\n     under the same terms and conditions that apply to a covered\n     employee under section 5545c if that employee--\n       ``(1) is employed by the Forest Service or the Department\n     of the Interior; and\n       ``(2) (A) is a wildland firefighter, as defined in section\n     5332a(a); or\n       ``(B) is certified by the applicable agency to perform\n     wildland fire incident-related duties during the period the\n     employee is deployed to respond to a qualifying incident (as\n     defined in section 5545c(a)).''; and\n       ``(2) in section 5547(a), in the matter preceding paragraph\n     (1), by inserting ``5545c,'' after ``5545a,''.\n       ``(c) Clerical amendments.--The table of sections for\n     subchapter V of chapter 55 of title 5, United States Code, is\n     amended--\n       ``(1) by amending the item relating to section 5544 to read\n     as follows:\n       ``5544. Wage-board overtime, Sunday rates, and other\n     premium pay.'';\n       ``and (2) by inserting after the item relating to section\n     5545b the following:\n       ``5545c. Incident response premium pay for employees\n     engaged in wildland firefighting.''.\n       ``(d) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section\n     shall take effect on the first day of the first applicable\n     pay period beginning on or after October 1, 2025, or the date\n     of enactment of this Act, whichever is later.\n\n  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT from Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance\n\n[[Page H276]]\n\nof my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.\n  The previous question was ordered.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the\nresolution.\n  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that\nthe ayes appeared to have it.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.\n  The yeas and nays were ordered.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further\nproceedings on this question will be postponed.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2025-01-22-pt1-PgH268"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 47.83189203590155, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}