[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 153 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8069-H8080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4118, BREAK THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE
ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5768, VIOLENT INCIDENT
CLEARANCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIVE METHODS ACT OF 2022;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6448, INVEST TO PROTECT ACT OF
2022; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8542, MENTAL HEALTH
JUSTICE ACT OF 2022
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1377 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1377
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4118) to
authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to build
safer, thriving communities, and save lives, by investing in
effective community-based violence reduction initiatives, and
for other purposes. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) 30 minutes of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their
respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5768) to direct
the Attorney General to establish a grant program to
establish, create, and administer the violent incident
clearance and technology investigative method, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
117-62, modified by the amendment printed in the report of
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) 30 minutes of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6448) to direct
the Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services of the Department of Justice to carry out a grant
program to provide assistance to police departments with
fewer than 200 law enforcement officers, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-65 shall
be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) 30 minutes of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8542) to amend
the Public Health Service Act to authorize grants to States,
Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, Urban Indian
organizations, and political subdivisions thereof to hire,
employ, train, and dispatch mental health professionals to
respond
[[Page H8070]]
in lieu of law enforcement officers in emergencies involving
one or more persons with a mental illness or an intellectual
or developmental disability, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) 30 minutes of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Demings). The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs.
Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 1377, providing for consideration of
four measures: H.R. 4118, H.R. 6448; H.R. 5768, and H.R. 8542, all
under closed rules.
For H.R. 4118 and H.R. 6448, the rule provides 30 minutes of general
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary for each bill and motions to
recommit for each measure.
For H.R. 5768, the rule provides 30 minutes of general debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, self-executes a manager's amendment from
Chairman Nadler, and provides a motion to recommit.
For H.R. 8542, the bill provides 30 minutes of general debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce and a motion to recommit.
Madam Speaker, Democrats in this Congress have been focused on
building safer communities since day one. We believe that every child
in America deserves the safety and security of growing up in a
community free from violence, trusting that the people who keep them
safe will do that regardless of the color of their skin or the ZIP Code
that they live in. We believe that the need to fight crime and improve
safety in our communities should unite us, not divide us.
These are good bills that we are considering today that will make our
communities safer.
The Mental Health Justice Act creates a grant program for States and
local governments to train and dispatch mental health professionals to
respond to emergencies that involve people with behavioral needs.
The VICTIM Act establishes a grant program to hire, train, and retain
detectives and victim services personnel to investigate shootings and
support victims.
The Break the Cycle of Violence Act provides grants to communities
for evidence-based community violence intervention and prevention
programs designed to interrupt cycles of violence.
The Invest to Protect Act creates a grant program to provide police
departments of fewer than 125 officers training resources for calls
involving people with substance use disorders, mental health needs, and
for people with disabilities.
I am glad that we are moving forward today. I am thankful to my
colleagues who have worked on these bills.
Do I want more?
Of course.
Will I keep fighting for us to do more?
Absolutely.
The truth is we still haven't made meaningful gains when it comes to
accountability. The House passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing
Act. Sadly, the Senate is yet to act on that bill.
But I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, and if you
don't like what is in one of these bills or all of them, then you can
vote against them. But I strongly urge everybody on both sides of the
aisle to vote ``yes'' on the rule so we can at least move this forward
and have the opportunity to debate these measures.
I am confident that many of the provisions of these four bills will
help save lives. But this conversation can't end here. We need to keep
making our communities safer in new, innovative, and imaginative ways.
We can start by passing this rule and passing the underlying
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank the Representative and my
colleague on the Rules Committee from Massachusetts for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, this morning we are here to debate a rule providing
for a series of bills that have been noticed multiple times going back
as far as July. But we in the Rules Committee were given 1 hour to
consider the changes that have been negotiated--negotiated internally--
within the majority conference with no minority input. Presumably, the
changes were made at the behest of the leftwing defund-the-police
activists who, unfortunately, have become the loudest voice in their
party.
It seems to me that these bills are a very transparent response to
the negative reaction Democrats have experienced as a result of these
continued calls while crime is understandably skyrocketing.
The VICTIM Act creates a new Federal grant program to help local
governments cut down on homicide and nonfatal shooting backlogs. The
funds can be used for hiring and training detectives and processing
personnel, upgrading or replacing investigative or evidence-processing
technology, and improving resources for victims and their families.
First of all, these programs largely replicate existing programs
managed by the Department of Justice. This, again, reminds us of why we
have been called to this debate. It is not to solve a problem. It is so
that my Democrat colleagues can look like they are solving problems.
Furthermore, programs like this would not be needed if the left had not
prioritized defunding the police over keeping our country's citizens
safe.
This bill effectively bails out governments like Austin,
Philadelphia, and Rochester, New York, that decreased police budgets
over the years.
The Invest to Protect Act expands COPS grant programs to include
police departments with fewer than 125 law enforcement officers. Funds
may be used for training, body cameras, signing and retention bonuses,
and providing access to mental health services.
Just to point out, there is a clause in this bill that explicitly
says that the Attorney General can give preference to activities that
have nothing to do with recruitment or retention.
Madam Speaker, the left has been actively fighting against law
enforcement, and, as a result, the American people are angry. They are
angry about the increases in violent crimes across the country, and
they are angry about repeat offenders being released to commit even
more serious crimes.
{time} 0915
They are angry that even after making these concerns clear, Democrats
have been ignoring them in favor of an extreme anti-police agenda. This
is a last-ditch effort for them to act like they are not deeply out of
touch with the country, coming just in time to see the results from
election polling.
This is an effort to sweep under the rug that my colleagues in the
majority will seek private security while simultaneously seeking cuts
to police budgets. My colleagues in the majority want to distract from
the statements of their Members that apparently defunding the police is
only one step toward fully dismantling police departments.
My colleagues want to distract from the fact that even some of the
most senior officials of the Biden administration are echoing or
applauding efforts to reduce budgets of law enforcement. Despite this
hollow effort, I am confident the American people see
[[Page H8071]]
right through this charade and view this for what it is, a political
exercise.
Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, I ask Members to do the same, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague from Minnesota
and appreciate serving with her on the Rules Committee, but I think the
only talk about politics here is from the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
She talks about defunding the police. The bills that are before us
are grant programs. So I am not sure what she is talking about. If you
want to talk about politics, fine, let's talk about voting records.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Washington Post article
titled ``21 House Republicans vote against awarding Congressional Gold
Medal to all police officers who responded on January 6.''
[From the Washington Post, June 15, 2022]
21 House Republicans Vote Against Awarding Congressional Gold Medal to
All Police Officers Who Responded on Jan. 6
(By Felicia Sonmez)
Twenty-one House Republicans on Tuesday voted against
awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to all police officers
who responded to the Jan. 6 violent attack on the Capitol by
a pro-Trump mob.
The measure passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan
support from 406 lawmakers. But the 21 Republicans who voted
``no'' drew immediate condemnation from some of their
colleagues, and the vote underscored the lingering tensions
in Congress amid efforts by some GOP lawmakers to whitewash
the events of that day.
Rep. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-Va.) called the ``no''
votes ``a sad commentary on the @HouseGOP,'' while Rep. Adam
Kinzinger (R-Ill.) declared, ``How you can vote no to this is
beyond me.''
``Then again, denying an insurrection is as well,''
Kinzinger, a vocal critic of former president Donald Trump,
said in a tweet. ``To the brave Capitol (and DC metro PD)
thank you. To the 21: they will continue to defend your right
to vote no anyway.''
In an interview on CNN Tuesday night, Rep. Gerald E.
Connolly (D-Va.) called the 21 ``no'' votes ``a new low for
this crowd.''
``They voted to overturn an election. But in their vote
today, they kind of sealed the deal of basically affiliating
with the mob,'' Connolly said. ``They now are part of the
insurrectionist mob. They brought enormous disrepute and
dishonor on themselves in not honoring the brave men and
women who defended the Capitol of the United States--
everybody in it, but also defending the symbol of democracy
in the world, not just here in the United States.''
In March, when an initial version of the legislation was
brought to the House floor, a dozen Republicans voted against
the measure. Many of those who voted ``no'' said they
objected to the use of the term ``insurrectionists'' in the
resolution.
Those GOP lawmakers included Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.),
Thomas Massie (Ky.), Andy Harris (Md.), Lance Gooden (Tex.),
Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Louie
Gohmert (Tex.), Michael Cloud (Tex.), Andrew S. Clyde (Ga.),
Greg Steube (Fla.), Bob Good (Va.) and John Rose (Tenn.).
The House and Senate then remained in a standoff for three
months over whether to honor all law enforcement who
responded on Jan. 6 or to award the Congressional Gold Medal
to one officer in particular, Capitol Police Officer Eugene
Goodman, who single-handedly diverted an angry mob away from
the Senate chamber.
The Senate had already unanimously voted to give the Gold
Medal exclusively to Goodman. The medal, bestowed by
Congress, is a symbol of national appreciation for
distinguished achievements.
Ultimately, both chambers agreed to slightly modify the
House legislation. Four Gold Medals will be awarded: one for
the Capitol Police, one for the D.C. police, another for the
Smithsonian Institution and another to be displayed inside
the Capitol building along with a plaque that names all law
enforcement agencies who helped repel the rioters that day.
On Tuesday, Gooden, one of the 12 House Republicans who
voted against the legislation in March, voted in favor of the
new bill.
But the number of opposing votes grew, with 10 other House
Republicans switching their votes from ``yes'' to ``no.''
Those Republicans are Reps. Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Barry
Moore (Ala.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Matthew M. Rosendale
(Mont.), Chip Roy (Tex.), Paul A. Gosar (Ariz.), Warren
Davidson (Ohio), Scott Perry (Pa.), Jody Hice (Ga.) and Mary
Miller (Ill.).
Some of those who voted ``no'' on Tuesday said they
objected to the use of the words ``temple'' or
``insurrection'' in the resolution.
``I wouldn't call it an insurrection,'' Greene said,
according to Politico.
Some House Republicans, such as Clyde, have sought to
recast the violent mob's actions on Jan. 6 as little
different from a ``normal tourist visit'' to the Capitol.
Others have sought to play down that day's events in
different ways.
During the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, rioters
attempted to break into the House chamber, punching and
busting glass, resulting in the death of Ashli Babbitt, whom
police shot when she attempted to climb through a shattered
glass door.
Gosar has previously claimed that Babbitt had been
``executed''--even though she defied police warnings and the
officer who fatally shot her was cleared of any criminal
wrongdoing.
Gosar did so again Tuesday, claiming during a House hearing
that a Capitol Police officer was ``lying in wait'' for
Babbitt and that she was ``executed,'' Politico reported.
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who was ousted from House
Republican leadership over her criticism of Trump's role in
the Jan. 6 insurrection, denounced Gosar's remarks Tuesday
evening.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, you heard that right: 21 of our
colleagues across the aisle opposed a simple bill honoring the heroes
of January 6; officers who now bear physical and psychological scars
from that day because they fought to protect us in the Capitol. It is
disgraceful. Yet, nothing about that from the other side of the aisle
in terms of just how disgraceful that was.
You can talk politics, but if you want to talk about the substance of
these bills, then do so and acknowledge what they are. They are bills
that will help make our community safer. They are bills that, quite
frankly--I should also point out that I think all but one of the bills
is the same as they were in July.
I am not quite sure what the fuss over the fact that we are bringing
these things up right now is all about. They are good bills that will
help make our community safer. Look, I trust that we pass the rule.
Some thoughtful Republicans will vote in favor of some of them or all
of them.
If you don't believe that this is an appropriate thing to do, then
you can vote ``no.'' That is your right, and you can go home and
explain it to your constituents.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I believe it is two bills that are different, but we
can check on that just to make sure that we understand what is going
on.
To further illustrate the political charade, my colleagues in the
majority have blocked any effort to include thoughtful policy solutions
proposed by House Republicans.
In the Rules Committee, I even offered a motion to consider a bill I
proposed earlier this year to support our law enforcement's efforts to
train our next generation of peace officers. H.R. 7421, the Law
Enforcement Education Grant Program Act of 2022, was a product of
discussions with Minnesota State patrol officers and other members of
the local community regarding the difficulty of not only hiring new
officers but even finding potential recruits.
Police departments across the country are experiencing a serious
shortage of officers. This lack of qualified officers has led to a
drastic increase in crime. We need to invest in recruiting a number of
well-trained and highly educated police officers to help keep our
communities safe.
This bill provides education grants of up to $4,000 per year, not
exceeding $16,000 total, to a student who is pursuing their first
degree in a law enforcement or criminal justice-related field. As a
requirement of receiving the grant, the applicant must commit to
serving as a full-time law enforcement officer for 4 years within an 8-
year period of completing their studies.
In order to instill integrity of the program and prevent abuse, if an
applicant fails to complete their service requirements, the grants will
be converted back into a loan and the applicant will be required to pay
it back.
In order to ensure flexibility over what education program best fits
the student, the grants are distributed directly to candidates, not
educational institutions. In addition, the curriculum at an institution
must have been approved by the State's Police Officer Standard and
Training Board, or the related State agency.
Finally, there are exemptions from the clawback bill for officers who
are injured in the line of duty and cannot serve out their 4-year
requirement. These are the types of solutions that the majority refuses
to even debate or bring forward under this rule. It further supports my
argument that this is
[[Page H8072]]
simply political theatre, covering up for years of dangerous and
irresponsible rhetoric that has put law enforcement in harm's way time
and time again.
I would just like to add that there are many, many good and positive
Republican proposals out there that the majority refuses to even
consider in committee, and this is just one example of those.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, just for the record, because I think it is important
to have an accurate record, the text of three of these bills has been
available for over a month. Even the manager's amendment on the VICTIM
Act of 2022, which the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs.
Demings) has introduced has been available for almost a month.
Again, the only one talking about politics is the gentlewoman from
Minnesota, but I guess that is all they have.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of the
VICTIM Act of 2022 from the National Association of Police
Organizations, from the National Fraternal Order of Police, from the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, from the National Police
Foundation, all in support of the VICTIM Act.
National Association of
Police Organizations, Inc.,
Alexandria, VA, June 14, 2022.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
Chair, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jim Jordan,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Jordan: On behalf
of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO),
representing over 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers
across the United States, I am writing to advise you of our
support for the Violent Incident Clearance and Technological
Investigative Methods (VICTIM) Act, H.R. 5768, and thank the
Committee for considering this legislation.
Our nation's cities and communities are experiencing a
historic rise in violent crime. Murders and non-fatal
shootings are going unresolved at higher rates as law
enforcement agencies do not have the officers and resources
to dedicate to improving clearance rates for these horrendous
crimes. The VICTIM Act will help address this issue by
supplying much needed grant funding to agencies to fill,
replenish, train, and support their detective and homicide
personnel. Through this legislation, law enforcement will be
able to focus on solving these violent crimes that have such
a detrimental impact on our communities and improve the
services that they render to victims.
We urge the Committee to join us in support of the VICTIM
Act and we look forward to working with you to ensure law
enforcement agencies have the support and resources necessary
to serve and protect our communities.
Sincerely,
William J. Johnson, Esq.,
Executive Director.
____
National Fraternal
Order of Police,
Washington DC, 13 June 2022.
Hon. Jerrold L. Nadler,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. James D. Jordan,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington DC.
Dear Representatives Nadler and Jordan: I am writing on
behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to
advise you of our support for H.R. 5768, the ``Violent
Incident Clearance and Technological Investigative Methods
(VICTIM) Act'' and H.R. 6528, the ``Active Shooter Alert
Act'' and to urge the Committee to favorably report these
bills.
In 2020, the United States saw the largest rise in
homicides since the start of national record-keeping in 1960.
Approximately 21,570 people were murdered in the United
States in 2020--the most since 1995--and a 29.4 percent
increase over 2019. Additionally, the FBI estimates that 77
percent of all murders in the United States in 2020 were via
firearms, up from 73 percent in 2019. At the same time that
the murder rate rose, the clearance rate for murders fell
significantly, from 61.4 percent in 2019 to 54.4 percent in
2020. In cities with a population above 250,000, the rate was
even more dramatic, falling from 57.6 percent in 2019 to 47.3
percent in 2020.
Homicide cases can be very difficult to clear--especially
those committed via a firearm--and non-fatal shootings even
more so. Closing these types of crimes requires diligence,
manpower, and a sustained investigative effort. Given the
limited resources of law enforcement agencies, it's important
to provide the significant, dedicated resources that clearing
these crimes requires, especially given their oftentimes
heinous nature.
The VICTIM Act would establish a grant program administered
by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to help State,
Tribal, and local law enforcement agencies improve their
clearance rates for homicides and non-fatal shootings.
Agencies can use these grant funds to train or hire
additional detectives, investigators, or other police
personnel that can investigate, solve, and respond to
homicides and non-fatal shootings. The grants can also be
used to improve training for agency personnel to address the
needs of victims and family members of homicides and non-
fatal shootings.
These important resources would improve law enforcement
agencies' abilities to close homicide cases, which would
punish the perpetrators of these crimes, provide justice for
the victims and their families, and grant peace of mind for
communities and the dedicated law enforcement officers that
serve them.
Active shooter events, however, are not like normal
firearms homicides cases. Rather than focusing on
investigative methods after the fact, these kinds of events
place a premium on the abilities of law enforcement to
quickly react to a fluid and oftentimes unclear situation.
Responding to an active shooter event is chaotic and can be
fraught with peril, especially when the incident is not
confined to one location. Law enforcement officers must
prioritize preserving lives and ending the threat.
Simultaneously, they need a way to notify the public about
the incident, whether that is to avoid a certain area,
shelter in place, or announce when the area is once again
safe. The ``Active Shooter Alert Act'' is designed to improve
the ways officers and agencies communicate with the public
about active threats.
The bill would establish a national coordinator within the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to set up and administer an
Active Shooter Alert Communications Network. The Active
Shooter Alert Coordinator, in coordination with other Federal
components like the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), would develop best
practices and training on the use of a secure communications
system during an active shooter event. We believe as you all
do--having a network for informing the public during these
critical incidents will save lives.
On behalf of the more than 364,000 members of the Fraternal
Order of Police, I am proud to offer our support for these
pieces of legislation.
Sincerely,
Patrick Yoes,
National President.
____
International Association of
Chiefs of Police,
Alexandria, VA, June 14, 2022.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
Chair, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jim Jordan,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Nadler and Ranking Member Jordan: On behalf of
the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), I
am writing to express our strong support for H.R. 5768, the
Violent Incident Clearance and Technological Investigative
Methods Act of 2021'' (VICTIM Act). By providing dedicated
resources to law enforcement agencies to enhance their
abilities to successfully investigate violent criminal acts,
the VICTIM Act will bring justice to victims, remove violent
offenders from our communities and bring closure to families.
Specifically, the VICTIM Act would, through a newly
established a Department of Justice grant program, provide
state, tribal and local law enforcement agencies with much
needed resources to assist them in enhancing their
investigatory capabilities. This includes allowing agencies
to:
hire and retain detectives to investigate homicide and non-
fatal shootings;
acquire resources for processing evidence, including the
hiring of additional personnel;
hire personnel trained to analyze criminal intelligence and
crime trends;
ensure victim services are sufficiently staffed, funded,
and trained.
The IACP urges the Judiciary Committee and the members of
the United States House of Representative to support and
approve H.R. 5768.
Sincerely,
Chief Dwight E. Henninger,
IACP President.
____
National Police Foundation,
February 18, 2022.
Hon. Val Demings,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Rep. Demings: I write on behalf of the National Police
Foundation to enthusiastically support H.R. 5768, the VICTIM
Act. The National Police Foundation is an independent and
nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing policing
through innovation and science.
Many communities across America are dealing with increases
in crime or concerns over their continued safety. In many
places, violent crime and shootings have increased
exponentially.
The grants authorized in the VICTIM Act will help law
enforcement agencies overcome some of the challenges
associated with responding to the current increase in violent
crime. More specifically, this bill will provide law
enforcement with critical resources
[[Page H8073]]
to address staffing challenges, enhance their forensics
capabilities, further deploy investigative technologies, and
provide services to victims of violent crime and their
families.
Thank you for your continued leadership and support for
America's law enforcement officers and all the people they
serve. We look forward to seeing this bill become law and the
resources getting into the hands of law enforcement where
they are so critically needed. We commend you and the other
sponsors for your commitment to funding the police and giving
them the tools they need to protect and serve.
Sincerely,
Jim Burch,
President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would respectfully suggest to my
colleague that they are supporting this legislation not because of
politics, they are supporting it because they think it is actually good
for our communities and will make our communities safer.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Forbes article titled
``Trump Loyalists' Calls To Defund the FBI, and Other Hypocrisies.''
[From Forbes, Aug. 12, 2022]
Trump Loyalists' Calls To Defund the FBI, and Other Hypocrisies
(By Shaun Harper)
Federal Bureau of Investigation agents executed a warrant
to search former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago
estate in Palm Beach, Florida this week. They were reportedly
looking for classified documents that weren't supposed to
leave the White House during the presidential transition.
Materials for which the FBI was looking apparently have
national security implications. In a press conference
yesterday, Attorney General Merrick Garland said he
``personally approved'' the search of Trump's home.
Shockingly and ironically, many Trump loyalists are calling
for the FBI to be defunded.
Following the police-executed murders of George Floyd and
Breonna Taylor in 2020, Black Lives Matter activists and
other Americans called for a defunding of police departments
across the country. Trump, most of his supporters, and
several others fiercely rejected this proposal. They praised
law enforcement officers and advanced what became known as
the ``Blue Lives Matter'' campaign. There was occasional
acknowledgment that a small number of bad apples sometimes
engage in bad behaviors. But systemic racism in policing?
Absolutely not. Opponents of the defund the police movement
loudly applauded the bravery, sacrifice, and integrity of law
enforcement officers.
Trump supporters who opposed defunding the police two years
ago are now calling for the FBI, a law enforcement agency, to
be defunded. Among them is Florida Republican congressional
candidate Anthony Sabatini, who in a CNN interview deemed the
FBI ``totally useless.'' He also wants FBI agents to be
arrested.
Garland, our nation's top cop, ``needs to be
assassinated,'' one person who may (or may not) be a Trump
supporter tweeted. This is just one of many social media
posts this week calling for violence against the Attorney
General and the FBI. Ricky Shiffer, an armed man who
allegedly fired into an FBI office building with a nail gun
and was armed with an AR-15-style rifle, was killed following
a car chase and standoff with law enforcement officers in
Cincinnati yesterday. Shiffer was allegedly part of pro-Trump
extremist groups that attacked the U.S. Capitol last year.
The hypocrisy over opposing defunding the police in 2020,
but calling for the FBI to be defunded now, is clear--though
not at all atypical. Trump loyalists have done versions of
this before.
``Lock her up,'' they chanted, as 2016 Democratic
Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was accused of storing
classified information on private, unencrypted email servers
in her home. Paradoxically, a version of this is why FBI
agents searched Trump's Florida estate this week.
The same group that reached determinations of Clinton's
guilt before, during, and after the investigation of her
swiftly determined that the FBI is wrong about Trump and
should therefore be defunded.
Another example are the ``My Body, My Choice'' posters that
many Trump supporters carried during rallies held throughout
the pandemic to oppose masking and vaccine mandates. That
phrase had been long used in pro-choice demonstrations. Most
Trump supporters aren't pro-choice, right?
The opposition of President Barack Obama nominating Merrick
Garland for the Supreme Court seat that became vacant eight
months prior to the 2016 election is a third example of
hypocrisy. Trump supporters and other GOP members
successfully argued that an outgoing president shouldn't have
the authority to nominate a new justice to the Court with so
little time remaining in his tenure. Yet, many of those same
politicians and other conservatives were fully on board with
Trump nominating Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court just
38 days before the 2020 presidential election.
And then there is the racialized double standard that
played out in the January 6 Capitol Insurrection. On June 1,
2020, a group of mostly peaceful demonstrators gathered near
the White House to protest George Floyd's murder. They killed
no one and did no damage to the White House or any other
federal building. But Trump still called in the National
Guard to aggressively remove them from the streets. His
supporters defended the president's decision. Just six months
later, hundreds of angry Trump loyalists, most of them white,
violently attacked the U.S. Capitol. Their actions resulted
in five deaths and the injuries of 140 law enforcement
officers.
The inescapably obvious role that race played in the
January 6 insurrection hasn't been talked about much, if at
all, in the recent congressional hearings. Had Black
Americans attacked the Capitol, I am certain that Trump
supporters, as well as other conservatives and liberals
alike, would have reached near-unanimous agreement on what
happened that day and the necessary legal repercussions. I
also remain convinced that most Black protestors would have
been immediately killed had they scaled and otherwise
violently entered any federal building, let alone the one in
which Vice President Mike Pence and congresspersons were
meeting at the time. Trump and his loyalists surely would've
argued those Black insurrectionists deserved whatever law
enforcement officers did to them that day, hence the
hypocrisy.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I remind my Republican colleagues that
just last month a number of them openly and unabashedly messaged around
defunding and dismantling the FBI. Some even sold campaign merchandise
with that tagline. Let that sink in, I would say to my colleagues.
In any event, pass the rule. Let's have the debate on these bills. If
you want to promote safer communities, then you will support them. If
you want to just do politics as usual, then you will follow the lead of
my colleague from Minnesota and vote against them.
Madam Speaker, these are good bills, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Massachusetts says, oh, these were
available; these were available for over a month.
Then my question would be: Then why the emergency meeting yesterday?
Why, with an hour's notice, the Rules Committee is called together to
push these bills through, other than some kind of political charade to
get these bills to the floor today at 9 o'clock in the morning with
very little notice?
It seems to me that as much as he says there are no changes, and that
they have been available, still, an emergency meeting with an hour's
notice at 3:25 in the afternoon yesterday, it seems like they are
pushing things through without the notice that the American people and
the Members of Congress deserve.
Our Nation's law enforcement officers put on a badge every day and
bravely put themselves in harm's way to keep our communities safe. The
past few years have been especially dangerous for America's police as a
direct result of the Democrat-led defund the police movement, and their
soft-on-crime policies.
Cities across the country have suffered a dramatic increase in crime.
Carjacking and smash-and-grab robberies are now common. Last year,
major cities broke their annual homicide records. The national rise in
crime has devastating costs for the communities and, also, for local
police.
In California, Kern County Deputy Sheriff Phillip Campas was killed
in the line of duty after his SWAT team responded to a domestic
violence call. He was a marine veteran and a dedicated father whose
legacy of heroism will never be forgotten.
In New York, New York City Police Officer Vogel was seen running
through Times Square toward an ambulance after saving a 4-year-old girl
who had been struck by a stray bullet. The officer's bravery and quick
thinking made all the difference in getting the girl to safety.
In Alabama, Wilcox County Constable Madison Nicholson, who had
protected his community for over 40 years, was shot and killed in the
line of duty when he and a sheriff's deputy were responding to a
domestic disturbance.
Our police are under attack like never before. According to the FBI,
more police officers were murdered in the line of duty during President
Biden's first year in office than in any year since 1995. Many of them
were killed in ambush-style or unprovoked attacks.
[[Page H8074]]
Not only have calls to defund, dismantle, or abolish the police that
come from the activists, or even within the Halls of Congress, have
created a more treacherous climate for officers, but it has also
negatively impacted morale among the police.
Nationwide, law enforcement agencies are short 7 percent of filling
budgeted positions, and retirements are up 45 percent. Law enforcement
is our essential line of defense in maintaining law and order. They
deserve America's and Congress' full support.
House Republicans are grateful to our law enforcement officers for
their service to our communities and understand the incredible
commitment they make in choosing to wear the uniform. We will always
stand with our men and women in blue and their families.
House Democrats would like to use these bills to convince the
American people of the same, but Americans know and understand.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota
for conceding that the text of three of the bills was available for a
month. I am glad we could set the record straight on that.
The second thing I will say is that at least two of these bills have
bipartisan cosponsorship. The VICTIM Act has four Republican
cosponsors. The Invest to Protect Act has 24 Republican cosponsors.
Maybe they didn't get the memo that they are supposed to put politics
ahead of people, but the bottom line is they are cosponsors of this. I
would expect, unless their arms are twisted, that they will vote for
the bills on final passage.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 101 human
rights, civil rights, racial justice, religiously affiliated, and gun
safety organizations who wrote in support of Congressman Horsford's
bill, H.R. 4118, the Break the Cycle of Violence Act. I think that is
worth noting.
July 30, 2021.
We the undersigned 101 human rights, civil rights, racial
justice, religiously affiliated and gun safety organizations
write in support of the Break the Cycle of Violence Act (S.
2275/H.R. 4118). We urge you to swiftly pass the Break the
Cycle of Violence Act to provide at least $5 billion in
federal funding over eight years for community gun violence
prevention programs.
Gun violence in the U.S. is a crisis, disproportionately
impacting Black and Brown communities nationwide. Gun
homicides are the leading cause of death among Black men ages
15-34 and the second-leading cause of death for Latino men
and boys of the same age range. Black men are more than ten
times as likely to be the victims of gun homicides than white
men. In 2019, 14,414 people died from gun homicides in the
U.S. Nearly 60 percent--8,607--of gun homicide deaths were
Black people. Yet Black people represent just 14.7 percent of
the U.S. population.
With a surge in gun sales in the wake of COVID-19,
shootings are increasing across the U.S., contributing to the
crisis. According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, there were 39,707 deaths in 2019, the most recent
year for which government data is available with 14,414 of
those being gun homicides. The Gun Violence Archive, a non-
profit organization that tracks and documents gun injuries
and deaths, published data in May 2021 indicating that the
number of deaths in 2020 had risen to a staggering 43,554
with 19,398 of those being gun homicides.
Evidence-based, community violence prevention programs have
been proven to reduce gun violence and save lives, while
investing resources in impacted communities. There are three
well-established models of gun violence prevention programs
that have proven successful in reducing violence, some of
which are referenced in both President Biden's executive
actions and guidance and in the Break the Cycle of Violence
Act. The Group Violence Intervention (``GVI'') strategy, a
form of problem-oriented policing (as opposed to traditional
``incident-driven'' policing), was first used in the
enormously successful Operation Ceasefire in Boston in the
mid-1990s where it was associated with a 61 percent reduction
in youth homicide. The program has now been implemented in a
wide variety of cities with consistently impressive results.
An analysis of more than 20 GVI programs showed a significant
reduction in firearm violence. The most successful of these
programs have reduced violent crime in cities by an average
of 30 percent and improved relations between law enforcement
officers and the neighborhoods they serve. The GVI model has
a remarkably strong track record: a documented association
with homicide reductions of 30 to 60 percent.
A study of the Cure Violence model, first implemented in
Chicago, found that its implementation in several targeted
districts in Chicago was associated with a 38 percent greater
decrease in homicides and a 15 percent greater decrease in
shootings, compared to districts that did not receive the
intervention. A 2018 evaluation of Philadelphia's Cure
Violence Program found that shootings decreased
significantly, compared to other matched comparison areas.
An example of Hospital Based Violence Intervention, the
third model of evidence-based violence prevention programs,
is the San Francisco Wraparound Project, first introduced in
2005. In its first six years of operation the Wraparound
Project was associated with a fourfold decrease in injury
recidivism (re-injury from gun-shot wounds) rates. Moreover,
studies have shown that this form of intervention saves
hospitals money by preventing future injuries, both for the
patient and for anyone the patient may have considered
retaliating against.
Investment, training, and support for culturally
appropriate violence prevention workers with lived experience
in impacted communities has proven successful in cities
across the U.S., yet lack of political will has resulted in
many advocates and community leaders working with limited or
no resources.
For example, Lamar Johnson of B.R.A.V.E. Chicago, said:
``Our after-school program is a non-profit- we run it through
the church--and the funding comes mostly from private donors.
The majority of the city's budget goes to law enforcement--
and that's not just Chicago, that's most cities. We've met
with mayors' administrations so many times and presented our
case, but they don't give us funding. The whole system is so
broken, because the focus is on the criminal justice system.
If someone is addicted to drugs, they go to jail before they
go to the hospital to get treatment. It's the mindset.''
Recognizing the effectiveness of these programs and the
heroic people like Lamar who lead them, President Biden, on
March 31, 2021, announced his intention to include $5 billion
for gun violence prevention programs in the American Jobs
Plan. This builds on the efforts of Senator Booker and
Representative Horsford to pass the Break the Cycle of
Violence Act, first introduced in the 116th Congress. If
passed, it would provide funding for federal grants to
communities that experience 20 or more homicides per year and
have a homicide rate at least twice the national average, or
communities that demonstrate a unique and compelling need for
additional resources to address gun and group-related
violence. Each grant awarded would be renewable over five
years, and funds would be commensurate with the scope of the
proposal and the demonstrated need.
While it is impossible to place a dollar amount on a
person's life or the cost of that loss to their families,
communities, and loved ones, the astronomical financial
impact of gun violence on U.S. society cannot be overlooked.
According to a 2020 study by physicians and researchers, gun
violence costs the U.S. healthcare system $170 billion per
year. The Health Alliance for Violence Intervention estimates
it would cost an estimated $827 million per year, or $5.36
billion over eight years, to fund sustained and adequate
violence intervention programs in the 48 U.S. cities with the
highest rates of violence--hence the call on Congress to pass
at least $5 billion over eight years for community gun
violence prevention programs.
With sustained investment into gun violence prevention
programs and a national comprehensive strategy aimed at
reducing gun violence, particularly in Black and Brown
communities, Congress can make inroads to reducing gun
violence in all communities and ensure the right of everyone
to live free from the threat of gun violence. Congress has an
obligation to take action to invest in communities ravaged by
gun violence and to make efforts to prevent gun violence and
protect the lives and safety of all individuals, particularly
in the face of evidence that the 2020 gun-related injury and
death tolls in the U.S. have been the highest in decades.
We urge Congress to act urgently to pass the Break the
Cycle of Violence Act to ensure at least $5 billion in
federal funding over eight years for community gun violence
prevention programs that save lives.
Sincerely,
Amnesty International USA, Community Justice Action Fund,
ACLU, African American Ministers in Action, Ban Assault
Weapons Now!, Brady, BRAVE Youth Leaders, Ceasefire Oregon,
Ceasefire Pennsylvania, Center for American Progress, The
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, CommonSpirit Health,
Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes and the CSA-USA
Associate Community Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph
of Peace, CT Against Gun Violence.
Dominican Sisters of Houston, Dominican Sisters--Grand
Rapids, Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa, Everytown for Gun
Safety, First Unitarian Universalist Church of Houston,
Franciscan Action Network, Franciscan Peace Center,
Franciscan Sisters of the Sacred Heart, Generation Progress,
Giffords, GPEC-ICHV, Grandmothers Against Gun Violence, Grey
Nuns of the Sacred Heart, Gun Violence Prevention PAC
Illinois, The Health Alliance for Violence Intervention, Holy
Spirit Missionary Sisters, USA-JPIC.
Honor with Action Coalition, Houston League of Business &
Professional Women, IHM Sisters--Justice, Peace and
Sustainability Office, Indivisible Northern Nevada, Institute
of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Intercommunity Peace and Justice
Center, Iowans for Gun Safety, Jewish Women International,
www.Journey4ward.org, Leadership
[[Page H8075]]
Conference of Women Religious, Leadership Team of the
Felician Sisters of North America, March for Our Lives DC,
Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, Massachusetts Coalition
to Prevent Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action.
NAACP, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence,
Newtown Action Alliance, Newtown Junior Action Alliance,
Nonviolence Institute of Rhode Island, North Carolina Council
of Churches, North Carolinians Against Gun Violence,
Northwest Coalition for Responsible Investment, Not My
Generation, Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, People for a
Safer Society, Presentation Sisters, San Francisco, CA,
Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, Region VI Coalition
for Responsible Investment, Religious of the Sacred Heart of
Mary, Western American Area.
Restorations Ministries, Inc., Rhode Island Coalition
Against Gun Violence, Sacred Ground Ministries, Saint Mark's
Episcopal Capitol Hill DC, San Diegans for Gun Violence
Prevention, Sandy Hook Promise, School Sisters of Notre Dame-
Atlantic Midwest Office, School Sisters of Notre Dame,
Central Pacific Province, Sisters of Bon Secours, USA,
Sisters of Charity, BVM, Sisters of Charity Federation,
Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Congregational Leadership,
Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Western Province Leadership,
Sisters of Charity of Saint Augustine, Sisters of Mercy of
the American Justice Team.
Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur USA, Sisters of St. Dominic
of Blauvelt, New York, Sisters of St. Dominic Racine, WI,
Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi, Sisters of St. Joseph of
Boston, Sisters of Saint Joseph of Chestnut Hill,
Philadelphia, PA, Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, LA,
Sisters of St. Joseph of NW PA, Sisters of St. Mary of Namur,
Sisters of the Holy Cross, Sisters of the Humility of Mary,
Squirrel Hill Stands Against Gun Violence, Stop Handgun
Violence, Students Demand Action, Survivors Lead.
Team Enough, Trinity Health, Union of Sisters of the
Presentation of BVM, USA Unit, United Church of Christ,
Justice and Local Church Ministries, Ursuline Sisters of
Cleveland, Ursuline Sisters of Louisville, KY, Ursuline
Sisters of Mount Saint Joseph, Wheaton Franciscans JPIC
Office, Youth Advocate Programs, Inc, Youth Over Guns.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, again I inserted earlier an article
talking about the Republicans that would not even honor the men and
women of the Capitol Police who defended us on January 6. I continue to
believe that that was a disgraceful moment.
But when the gentlewoman says that somehow they will always stand on
behalf and honor members of law enforcement--let me just read a few
quotations here. Representative Jeff Duncan from South Carolina:
``The FBI has proven time and again that it is corrupt to the core.
At what point do we abolish the Bureau and start over?''
Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona says:
``I will support a complete dismantling and elimination of the
Democrat brownshirts known as the FBI. This is too much for our
Republic to withstand.''
Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado:
``The GOP majority must defund all forms of tyranny throughout
Biden's government. @FBI.''
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia:
``Impeach Merrick Garland and defund the corrupt FBI. End political
persecution and hold those accountable that abuse their positions of
power to persecute their political enemies, while ruining our country.
This shouldn't happen in America. Republicans must force it to stop.''
{time} 0930
On Marjorie Taylor Greene's website, she is selling defund the FBI T-
shirts, so it is my friends on the other side of the aisle who want to
defund law enforcement, who want to defund the police.
There is an old saying: Physician, heal thyself. You ought to take
that to heart. The bottom line here is that these are bills that will
help improve safety in our communities. These are bills that local
officials, local law enforcement organizations, want. The only people
who don't want them are my friends on the other side of the aisle.
If you want to vote no, vote no. But I suspect that some on the
minority side understand what their communities want, and they don't
want politics as usual. They don't want people putting politics over
people. What they want is help for their communities.
You have a chance. You can either vote yes to help the communities or
vote no. That is your choice.
Madam Speaker, I think these bills are good bills. We should support
the rule. We should support the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, for years now, progressives in the media have
disparaged law enforcement at every opportunity, from the defund the
police movement to agenda-driven liberal district attorneys in cities
like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and New York. There is a
clear strategic effort on the part of Democrats to demean police
officers nationwide at the expense of law and order.
In 2021, according to the Fraternal Order of Police, 346 officers
were shot, 63 fatally. Additionally, there were 103 ambush-style
attacks on law enforcement, a 115 percent increase from 2020.
Even as members of the Democratic Party are victims of increasing
crimes, they are unwavering in their aggression on those in uniform who
stand on the front lines and every day protect and serve our
communities. Rather than acknowledging and thanking these brave men and
women, Democrats have repeatedly gone out of their way to put the blame
on those in uniform.
They may claim otherwise, but here are the words straight from their
mouths. If we need to make sure that we are quoting people today, I am
more than willing to do that.
`` . . . Police in our country are more concerned with protecting
white supremacy than serving the communities that pay their
salaries.''--Representative Bowman.
``Defunding the police isn't radical. It is real.''--Representative
Cori Bush.
``The truth is that abolishing ICE isn't that radical. We reorganize
government all the time, creating some agencies and eliminating others.
Nevertheless, it is a bold proposal. It is time to be bold. It is time
to abolish ICE.''--Representative Mark Pocan.
``The defund the police movement is one of reimagining the current
police system to build an entity that does not violate us, while
relocating funds to invest in community services.''--Representative
Ilhan Omar.
``Defunding police means defunding police.''--Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
``We are spending too much money on the police. There should be
substantial cuts to the police budget and a reallocation of those
funds.''--Representative Jerry Nadler.
Now, they expect us to believe they support our law enforcement. They
think that putting these bills forward will make the American people
believe they care about law enforcement. It seems that it has taken
them until now to see how out of touch they are with the American
people.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Rutherford).
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I have to tell you, I have spent 40 years in law
enforcement, 12 as a sheriff, as you know, and I have to tell you,
never in my life have I seen law enforcement more under attack in
America than I have for the last 2\1/2\ years--never.
I know the dangers that they face out there every day. I have been
there. I have done that. I have to tell you, the attempts by those
across the aisle to delegitimize, to demoralize, and to defund our
State and local law enforcement is atrocious and unforgivable.
I hope that, come November, the American public will hold accountable
some of these folks that you just heard read out. I can tell you, I
don't think they are popular at all with the American public. Yet, now,
leading into the midterms, we are going to come together, and we are
going to throw four bills onto the floor to address law enforcement and
show that we are supportive of law enforcement. I can tell you three of
these bills are off that point.
First of all, the Mental Health Justice Act, the VICTIM Act, and the
Break the Cycle of Violence Act, these three bills, let's take them one
at a time.
The Mental Health Justice Act will actually make it more dangerous
for
[[Page H8076]]
law enforcement, make it more dangerous for our citizens. We are going
to literally send mental health workers to respond to volatile
situations where police officers, who are armed, go in and are killed
oftentimes.
Mental health calls are some of the most dangerous calls that we
handle, and we want to send civilians in lieu of law enforcement? I
don't think so.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
The idea that we are going to send civilians to do a law enforcement
officer's job in quelling a dangerous, volatile situation is bad
business.
The VICTIM Act does nothing. There is nothing new in the VICTIM Act.
All it does is add to the programs that already exist in DOJ--not one
single new idea in the VICTIM Act.
The Break the Cycle of Violence Act, first of all, comes with a very
hefty price tag, $6.5 billion, but all that money goes to public health
government bureaucrats, not law enforcement.
Listen, our job in Congress is to provide effective assistance to our
law enforcement men and women. These three acts do not do that. They
simply do not achieve that goal.
I am glad, however, that my colleagues have finally decided that
defunding the police is not a good idea, but I wish they would look at
the appropriation bills where they are basically federally defunding
law enforcement because they are putting all
of these strings attached to all of
our DOJ grants that go to small-,
medium-, and large-sized agencies.
They are never going to be able to meet those standards, never going
to be able to meet all of those standards. So, basically, we just
federally defunded State and local law enforcement if that passes. I
hope to God it doesn't.
Instead of these misguided policies, let's work together on some
solutions. Help us hire and retain some of the best and brightest
officers that we have.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on all three of these bills: the
Mental Health Justice Act, the VICTIM Act, and the Break the Cycle of
Violence Act. These will do nothing but endanger our law enforcement
men and women.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Minnesota said, if I am quoting it
right, ``They expect us to believe they support our law enforcement.''
I will be honest with you. I don't expect my colleagues to believe
anything, but I expect them to read the bills and to decide whether or
not, if you pass these bills, they will help make our communities safer
or not.
The gentleman from Florida didn't like three of the bills, but he
likes one of the bills. The beauty of this rule is you will be able to
vote on all of them, and you can vote no on the ones you don't like,
and you can vote yes on the ones that you do like.
When we talk about how law enforcement has been under attack, I don't
want to hear any lectures from my friends on the other side of the
aisle. I went through a whole litany of Republican Members who were
calling for defunding the FBI.
My friends have a Member on the Republican side who actually is
selling defund the FBI T-shirts on her web page. It says, ``Defund the
FBI.'' It is defund the police. My colleagues don't seem to care much
about that.
I will go back to something else that I still can't get out of my
mind, and that was the vote on awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to
the United States Capitol Police officers who saved the lives of
everybody who was here that day, and 21 Republican Members voted no.
That is a disgrace. That has brought shame on this institution.
So, don't lecture any of us about our support for law enforcement
when 21 of the Members on the other side of the aisle voted no on a
Congressional Gold Medal to honor the brave men and women who protected
us in this Chamber on that day. Enough.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, with all due respect, potentially, my colleague from
Massachusetts didn't hear some of the quotes that I read earlier, many
of them talking about ``defunding police means defunding police,''
Representative Ocasio-Cortez.
I can go back through them, or I certainly am more than happy to
provide them in writing to my colleague, but I just wanted to remind
him that, yes, there were many quotes that I read regarding Democrats
and defunding the police.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two articles, one titled
``Even Democrats are now admitting `Defund the Police' was a massive
mistake,'' and another titled ``'Defund the Police' still haunts
Democrats.''
[From CNN Politics, Nov. 5, 2021]
Even Democrats Are Now Admitting `Defund the Police' Was a Massive
Mistake
(By Chris Cillizza)
(CNN).--On Tuesday, a proposal to fundamentally restructure
the Minneapolis police department in the wake of George
Floyd's death in 2020 was soundly defeated, a setback that
even many Democrats acknowledged could be laid at the feet of
the ``defund the police'' movement that some within the party
embraced last summer.
``I think allowing this moniker, `Defund the police,' to
ever get out there, was not a good thing,'' Minnesota
Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) told The Washington Post's
Dave Weigel on Thursday.
That's a remarkable turnaround from how politicians--in and
out of Minnesota--acted in the immediate aftermath of Floyd's
death and the summer of nationwide protests that followed.
Nine members of the Minneapolis City Council appeared at an
event in June 2020 in which they pledged that they would work
to dismantle the police force in the city. They did so on a
stage that featured large cutout letters spelling out
``Defund Police.''
``We committed to dismantling policing as we know it in the
city of Minneapolis and to rebuild with our community a new
model of public safety that actually keeps our community
safe,'' City, Council President Lisa Bender told CNN at the
time.
That message was picked up by some of the most liberal
members of Congress--from Minnesota's Ilhan Omar to
Michigan's Rashida Tlaib.
New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, perhaps the best
known progressive in Congress, warned that dismissing calls
to defund the police--or, at the very least, to reconsider
the way police interact with a community--was a mistake. ``It
is not crazy for Black and brown communities to want what
White people have already given themselves and that is
funding your schools more than you fund criminalizing your
own kids,' she said.
Even as liberal members (and the activist community) were
pushing for the party to embrace the ``defund the police''
movement, others within the party were warning of the
political dangers inherent in the slogan.
``This movement today, some people tried to hijack it,''
House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-South Carolina), the
highest ranking African American in Congress, warned his
party, according to reporting in Politico. ``Don't let
yourselves be drawn into the debate about defunding police
forces.''
Clyburn's warning proved prophetic. Then-President Donald
Trump seized on the issue during the 2020 campaign, casting
it as evidence that Democrats were out of touch with the
average person. ``LAW & ORDER, NOT DEFUND AND ABOLISH THE
POLICE.,'' Trump tweeted in June 2020. ``The Radical Left
Democrats have gone Crazy!'' And then this the following
month: ``Corrupt Joe Biden wants to defund our police. He may
use different words, but when you look at his pact with Crazy
Bernie, and other things, that's what he wants to do. It
would destroy America!''
Even as Trump and Republicans were working to make ``defund
the police'' a national issue (Joe Biden had made clear he
did not favor defunding), the Minnesota politicians who were
at the forefront of the ``defund'' movement were beginning to
back off in the face of rising crime in the city. As
Minnesota Public Radio reported in September 2020:
``Just months after leading an effort that would have
defunded the police department, City Council members at
Tuesday's work session pushed chief Medaria Arradondo to tell
them how the department is responding to the violence.
``The number of reported violent crimes, like assaults,
robberies and homicides are up compared to 2019, according to
MPD crime data. More people have been killed in the city in
the first nine months of 2020 than were slain in all of last
year. Property crimes, like burglaries and auto thefts, are
also up. Incidents of arson have increased 55 percent over
the total at this point in 2019.''
(The City Council had, months before, moved $1.1 million
from the police department to the health department.)
After several fits and starts, Question 2 was added to the
2021 ballot. Among its Provisions was replacing the Minnesota
police
[[Page H8077]]
department with a department of public safety, getting rid of
language that requires a minimum number of police officers to
be employed by the city and forcing the mayor to win the city
council's support for someone to run the new department.
While the vote was expected to be quite close, it was, in
fact, not. As CNN wrote of the results:
``The status quo-affirming result is a setback to both
citywide and national efforts to fundamentally reduce or
eliminate the role of police in America. Opponents of calls
to ``defund the police'' will point to the vote as fresh
evidence that the backlash to police abuse that fueled last
year's protests, which followed the killing of Floyd by then
Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Talk of curbing
police departments by cutting or limiting their resources has
run into a countervailing wall of concern over public safety
and waning support from early allies--including leading
Democrats who largely view it as political poison.''
The question now for Democrats is whether they totally
abandon efforts to remake policing in this country. (A
bipartisan police reform attempt failed in Congress earlier
this year.) Or if they continue on while doing their best to
leave the ``defund the police'' slogan behind them.
[From Roll Call, Apr. 27, 2022]
`Defund the Police' Still Haunts Democrats
(By David Winston)
It's becoming increasingly clear that after the economy,
crime is a hot-button issue driving voter sentiment in the
lead-up to the November elections. But despite voter-concern,
Democrats continue to be divided over the controversial
``defund the police'' mantra that has grabbed headlines for
the past two years, and it's beginning to hurt their
prospects for the fall elections.
The mixed messaging of party leaders versus the call to
defund by progressives, especially extreme comments by
members of the Squad, has become a costly roadblock to
retaining the House as voters lose confidence in Democrats'
ability to address rising violence across the country.
Even a cursory look at statements by Democratic leaders and
radical backbenchers opposed to increased funding of police
explains the party's dilemma.
On Feb. 13, George Stephanopoulos raised the issue of Rep.
Cori Bush's statements calling for defunding the police
during an interview with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. ``With all due
respect in the world to Cori Bush,'' she replied, ``that is
not the position of the Democratic Party.''
Pelosi then declared, ``Defund the police is dead.''
Two weeks later, in his State of the Union address,
President Biden called for increased funding for police: ``We
should all agree: The answer is not to defund the police. The
answer is to fund the police. Fund them. Fund them.''
Apparently, Squad member Bush didn't get the message. In a
tweet after the speech, she said, ``With all due respect, Mr.
President, you didn't mention saving Black lives once in this
speech. All our country has done is given more funding to
police. The result? 2021 set a record for fatal police
shootings. Defund the police. Invest in our communities.''
A month later, a gunman shot up a New York subway train,
and an inconvenient 2019 letter from Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez, Jerrold Nadler and other liberal New York House
members resurfaced. The letter to then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo
opposed a plan to put 500 new Metropolitan Transportation
Authority officers in the subways to reduce crime.
But AOC was having none of it. She and her fellow members
wrote that the MTA funding for increased police presence in
the subways would be better spent on ``desperately needed
resources'' like ``subway, bus, maintenance, and service
improvements,'' telling Cuomo, ``The subway system is now
safer than before.''
Last week, Rep. Abigail Spanberger called defunding the
police ``a terrible idea,'' while a Politico story said, ``As
the midterm elections pick up, Democrats are calling for more
police funding and attempting to co-opt traditionally
Republican talking points on crime.''
``Defund the police'' may no longer be the position of the
Democratic Party, but when Cori Bush, AOC or any member of
the Squad weighs in on any issue, the Twittersphere lights up
like a cop car in hot pursuit. It seems the media can't get
enough of the Squad, and polling shows that this intraparty
fight over the issue of policing and crime has not only
become a major headache for Pelosi but is also taking a toll
on the Democrats' credibility.
When the electorate was asked in the Winning the Issues
(WTI) February survey if they believed that we need to defund
the police, only 21 percent believed the statement, while 64
percent did not. Independents were even more adamant that
defunding the police was a bad idea, coming in at an
overwhelming 12 percent for and 70 percent against.
Despite Biden and Pelosi's efforts to stem the bleeding by
offering up more funding to stop gun violence and invest in
community policing, the WTI research shows that Democrats are
losing the issue, with more voters believing that the
Democratic Party supports defunding the police than not by a
margin of 48 percent to 34 percent.
There are three main reasons for the Democrats' troubles on
this issue. First, there is widespread recognition of just
how serious rising crime is becoming, with 7 out of 10 voters
believing that across America, violent crime is escalating.
Six out of 10 voters agree with the statement that
``families, communities and small business are being
endangered and experiencing the devastating effects of
rhetoric about defunding the police and police department
budget cuts at the hands of politicians.''
These views extend across party, ideology, age and region,
making a concept like defunding the police totally out of
tune with most voters who oppose it by a 3-to-1 margin.
There's a second reason for the Democrats' weakness on the
crime issue. The president and other Democrats have tried to
have it both ways--trying to pose as supporters of the police
while only reluctantly, if at all, acknowledging that crime
is a major problem.
On the White House website list of priorities, crime
doesn't even make the list. The White House's lack of
acknowledgment and often dismissive rhetoric about crime,
particularly in cities with progressive mayors and
prosecutors, has led directly to its weak standing on the
issue.
As a result, when voters were asked in the March survey
whether they believed Democrats would focus on law
enforcement efforts to deal with violent offenders, they were
split, with 44 percent believing they would and 43 percent
believing they wouldn't. Independents were even more
skeptical, with 36 percent believing and 46 percent not
believing.
In contrast, voters by a 61 percent to 27 percent margin
believed that Republicans would stand with law enforcement in
their efforts to ensure the safety of our communities and the
protection of America's families and children.
Not surprisingly, Democrats trail on the handling of the
crime and safety issue by 12 points (48 percent favoring
Republicans, 36 percent favoring Democrats) and among
independents by 13 points (42 percent-29 percent, with 29
percent undecided). The Democratic Party's silence about
threats to safety has left Democrats supporting a policy
position that voters find alienating.
Finally, with police officers, Democrats have chosen the
wrong group to vilify. The police have a very favorable brand
image (72 percent favorable, 20 percent unfavorable in the
March WTI survey). Congressional Democrats have a negative
brand at 44 percent favorable, 49 percent unfavorable. By
affiliating themselves with the defund the police movement,
they are seen by voters as opposing a very positive group of
public servants who are well liked and supported by the
electorate.
By trying to straddle the fence on crime and safety, Biden,
Pelosi and Democratic members fearing primaries have been
unwilling to take on their anti-police progressives. If the
trend continues, this issue will haunt Democrats this
November and for a long time to come.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, Democrats have long respected and
supported our law enforcement. As Representatives Guest and Letlow so
eloquently stated in their resolution to express support for
recognizing National Police Week, they serve with valor, dignity, and
integrity.
They are charged with pursuing justice for all individuals and
performing the duties of a law enforcement officer with fidelity to the
constitutional rights and civil rights of the public that the officers
serve.
They swear an oath to uphold the public trust, even though through
the performance of their duties of law enforcement officers, the
officers may become targets of senseless acts of violence.
They have bravely continued to meet the call of duty to ensure the
security of their neighborhoods and communities at the risk of their
own personal safety in the time of a viral pandemic.
There were 619 officers killed in the line of duty in 2021.
Republicans honor all of them and prioritize protecting and supporting
today's officers.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Guardian
titled ``'Republicans are defunding the police: FOX News anchor stumps
Congressman.''
[From the Guardian, June 28, 2021]
Republicans Are Defunding the Police--Fox News Anchor Stumps
Congressman
(By Martin Pengelly)
The Fox News anchor Chris Wallace made headlines of his own
on Sunday, by pointing out to a senior Republican that he and
the rest of his party recently voted against $350bn in
funding for law enforcement.
``Can't you make the argument that it's you and the
Republicans who are defunding the police?'' Wallace asked Jim
Banks, the head of the House Republican study committee.
[[Page H8078]]
The congressman was the author of a Fox News column in
which he said Democrats were responsible for spikes in
violent crime.
``There is overwhelming evidence,'' Banks wrote,
``connecting the rise in murders to the violent riots last
summer''--a reference to protests over the murder of George
Floyd which sometimes produced looting and violence--``and
the defund the police movement. Both of which were supported,
financially and rhetorically, by the Democratic party and the
Biden administration.''
Joe Biden does not support any attempt to ``defund the
police'', a slogan adopted by some on the left but which
remains controversial and which the president has said
Republicans have used to ``beat the living hell'' out of
Democrats.
On Fox News Sunday, Banks repeatedly attacked the so-called
``Squad'' of young progressive women in the House and said
Democrats ``stigmatised'' law enforcement and helped
criminals.
``Let me push back on that a little bit,'' Wallace said.
``Because [this week] the president said that the central
part in his anti-crime package is the $350bn in the American
Rescue Plan, the Covid relief plan that was passed.''
Covid relief passed through Congress in March, under rules
that meant it did not require Republican votes. It did not
get a single one.
Asked if that meant it was ``you and the Republicans who
are defunding the police'', Banks dodged the question.
Wallace said: ``No, no, sir, respectfully--wait, sir,
respectfully ... I'm asking you, there's $350bn in this
package the president says can be used for policing . . .
``Congressman Banks, let me finish, and I promise I will
give you a chance to answer. The president is saying cities
and states can use this money to hire more police officers,
invest in new technologies and develop summer job training
and recreation programs for young people. Respectfully, I've
heard your point about the last year, but you and every other
Republican voted against this $350bn.''
Turning a blind eye to Wallace's question, Banks said: ``If
we turn a blind eye to law and order, and a blind eye to
riots that occurred in cities last summer, and we take police
officers off the street, we're inevitably going to see crime
rise.''
Wallace asked if Banks could support any gun control
legislation. Banks said that if Biden was ``serious about
reducing violent crime in America'', he should ``admonish the
radical voices in the Democrat [sic] party that have
stigmatised police officers and law enforcement''.
Despite working for Republicans' favoured broadcaster,
Wallace is happy to hold their feet to the fire, as grillings
of Donald Trump and Kevin McCarthy have shown.
He has also attracted criticism, for example for failing to
control Trump during a chaotic presidential debate last year
which one network rival called ``a hot mess, inside a
dumpster fire, inside a train wreck''.
Last year, Wallace told the Guardian: ``I do what I do and
I'm sitting there during the week trying to come up with the
best guests and the best show I possibly can and I'm not
sitting there thinking about how do we fit in some media
commentary.
``We're not there to try to one-up the president or any
politician.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if you look at the voting record of many
of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you will see few to
none supported recent funding bills that also direct money toward
supporting local law enforcement. If they think that we are on a
crusade to defund the police, well, the last few years of funding the
police say otherwise.
Madam Speaker, I also include in the Record a Rolling Stone article
titled `` `Back-The-Blue' Republicans Bail on Moment of Silence for
Fallen Capitol Police Officers.''
[From Rolling Stone, Jan. 6, 2022]
`Back-The-Blue' Republicans Bail on Moment of Silence for Fallen
Capitol Police Officers
(By Tim Dickinson)
The Republican Party holds itself as the champions of law
enforcement. They campaign on slogans of ``Back the Blue.''
They hold rallies flying the ``Thin Blue Line'' flag. They
purport to celebrate the cops who shield the nation from
violence and anarchy.
But when it came time to show up in the halls of Congress
for a remembrance of the sacrifices Capitol and Metropolitan
Police made defending our democracy from violence last Jan.
6, Republicans lawmakers didn't bother to show up. Only one
sitting Republican officeholder showed up, Wyoming Rep. Liz
Cheney. She was accompanied by her father Dick, the former
vice president.
On that dark day one year ago, the ``Thin Blue Line'' was
not a metaphor. Police put their bodies and lives in harm's
way, attempting to blockade the joint session of Congress
from the violent mob of Trump supporters who sought to stop
the peaceful transfer of power after a lawful election. These
cops were beaten, tased, tear gassed, dragged down steps, and
crushed in doorways. More than 140 were injured in the
insurrection, and five officer deaths (including subsequent
suicides) have been linked to the violence and trauma of Jan.
6.
``I want to acknowledge our fallen heroes of that day,''
said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leading a House session marking
the anniversary of the attack. ``Now I ask all members to
rise in a moment of silence in their memory.''
As the officials rose, the visual of a nearly empty GOP
side of the aisle was chilling, as Sen. Chris Murphy of
Connecticut noted on Twitter:
At the moment of silence for the Capitol Police officers
who died, there were only two Republicans who showed up.
Rep. Lynn Cheney. And her father. The 80 year old former
Vice President.
An extraordinary image of where this country's politics are
right now.
--Chris Murphy January 6, 2022
Speaking to reporters at the Capitol, the former vice
president said he attended the House session to mark ``an
important historical event.'' Cheney elaborated that he was
``deeply disappointed we don't have better leadership in the
Republican Party to restore the Constitution.'' The swipe at
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and House minority
leader Kevin McCarthy--who could not be bothered to attend
the remembrance, and who have done little to combat Trump's
destructive and ongoing lies about the 2020 election--was
unmistakable.
Rep. Cheney's attendance was not surprising. She is the top
Republican on the bipartisan congressional committee
investigating the events of Jan. 6, and has been consistent
and unabashed in her criticism of Donald Trump, blaming him
directly for the violence at the Capitol. Cheney has been
treated as a pariah by Trump--who has called her a ``bitter,
horrible human being''--and was ousted from GOP House
leadership earlier this year for refusing to kowtow to the
Dear Leader.
Rep. Adam Kinzinger, the other Republican on the Jan. 6
committee, is expecting the birth of a child and could not
attend. ``Wish I could be there too, but I'm on baby watch,''
he tweeted. ``I am in spirit.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I find it hard to believe that someone
says they back the police when they don't even do the bare minimum and
show up and remember those who fought to save the lives of our very
democracy and every single person in this Chamber that day.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I point out that my good friend and colleague from
Minnesota, Congressman Stauber, who is former law enforcement, has
twice now released the JUSTICE Act, a commonsense police reform bill,
that would rebuild trust between law enforcement and communities they
serve.
{time} 0945
Why is it that that has not come to the floor yet? And why is that
not part of the package that we are looking at?
Congressman Stauber was a police officer for 20 years. He knows law
enforcement exists to serve America's communities, and he knows what is
needed to rebuild the damaged relationship between officers and
civilians.
The Just and Unifying Solutions to Invigorate Communities Everywhere,
or the JUSTICE Act, would fund better training for police officers,
increase the number of body cameras, and provide important grants to
police departments to help implement community policing best practices.
Sound familiar?
He introduced this bill this Congress and last Congress and, yet,
despite its past bipartisan support, Democrats continuously blocked
efforts to bring this to the floor.
Why would Democrats block such a commonsense bill for years and now
decide it is necessary to pass these bills?
Let's just take a look at what they spent time promoting instead. For
example, the Democrats so-called George Floyd Justice in Policing Act
is a divisive bill being pushed through by the majority without any
Republican input. Disguised as accountability, the bill would make
communities less safe, hinder law enforcement's ability to do their
job, limit the readiness of law enforcement, and demonizes an entire
profession for the actions of a few.
It eliminates qualified immunity protections for Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officers which protect officers who have to
operate in high-pressure, quick-decision environments.
It lowers the mental standard for Federal civil rights lawsuits. It
allows officer convictions, even if the officer has no specific intent
to deprive a person of a Federal right.
I have given a couple of examples of good, strong Republican
legislation that was not considered as even part of the Democrats' so-
called police or law
[[Page H8079]]
enforcement support grouping of bills that they have put together today
in an emergency meeting yesterday.
If there was truly support for law enforcement, they would have come
together in a bipartisan manner, discussed it with law enforcement,
discussed it with the minority, and really come together and created
legislation that would truly do what we need it to do, and that is
support and help our law enforcement.
Madam Speaker, today's debate is nothing more than a political stunt,
as I have mentioned. The Democrats have put forward these bills at the
last minute so they can go home this weekend and pretend they have done
something to help police in this country.
I mentioned it before. If the majority was sincere about supporting
law enforcement, they would have involved the minority. They would have
had discussion about the bills, good solid bills that the minority has
put forward, and they would have had discussions with law enforcement
across the country to find real solutions.
Our police do need our help. There is a war on police in this
country, thanks to the efforts of those on the far left. They know it;
I know it; and the American people know it.
But these bills are just one more insincere attempt. One mostly
recreates programs that already exist within the DOJ. The other
includes a section that still gives preference to efforts that do not
include recruitment and retainment.
Honestly, Madam Speaker, my colleagues should be embarrassed and
ashamed of this political stunt, especially when it comes to something
that affects everyone's safety and the American people's safety.
Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I encourage Members to do the
same.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I thank the gentlewoman for that closing statement. I keep hearing
the Democrats want to defund the police, so here we are on the House
floor talking about creating grant programs to help keep communities
safer. Now the Republicans are the ones who are talking about defunding
the police. Do you see the irony?
Democrats actually have solutions in these four bills; real ideas
that have been publicly available for months to make our streets safer
and reduce crime. Republicans are the ones talking about defunding and
abolishing the FBI.
I will remind my colleagues that you have Republican Members who are
raising campaign funds by selling Defund the FBI T-shirts. Want to talk
about disgusting?
No mention of that from my colleagues. Fundraising off of selling T-
shirts to defund the police; that is what my friends are doing.
Again, I go back to my point earlier. I still can't get over that 21
Republicans couldn't even vote to give a Congressional Gold Medal to
the men and women who defended us on January 6. I mean, talk about
disgusting. Couldn't show up on the House floor for a moment of silence
to honor those police who lost their lives as a result of what happened
on January 6. Talk about disgusting.
We have ideas here that I think are worth bipartisan support. Some of
this stuff I think should have been brought up under suspension. But,
again, my friends put politics ahead of people. We want to put people
ahead of politics.
Take the VICTIM Act, H.R. 5768. This establishes a grant program in
the Department of Justice to help State, Tribal, and local law
enforcement agencies improve their clearance rates for homicides and
nonfatal shootings. To me, that seems common sense.
The Break the Cycle of Violence Act, H.R. 4118, creates a nationwide
strategy to make our communities safer by addressing both the symptoms
and root causes of violence.
The Invest to Protect Act, H.R. 6448, makes targeted investments to
ensure that local police departments have the training they need to
keep our communities safe.
The Mental Health Justice Act, H.R. 8542; one in four fatal police
encounters ends the life of an individual with severe mental illness.
The Mental Health Justice Act makes it easier to send trained mental
health professionals to respond to individuals experiencing a mental
health crisis.
To me, these are basic, commonsense bills that I think the
overwhelming majority of people in this country, Democrats,
Republicans, Independents, would all support.
You want to talk about not supporting our law enforcement.
Republicans voted against $350 billion in the American Rescue Plan that
could be used for policing. So please don't lecture us about defunding
the police. Republicans only seem to support law enforcement when they
are looking for votes. That is a common theme here, when it is
politically convenient for them. It is really shameful, and it is
cynical. It is why people get frustrated with Washington because
everything has a political motivation.
On stuff that we all should come together on, my friends on the other
side of the aisle always come up with an issue, an excuse not to do the
right thing. You don't have to agree on everything to agree on
something, and this is something we ought to agree on and we ought to
come together on and get it done.
These are good bills, Madam Speaker, bipartisan bills. I urge a
``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker. I rise today in strong support of this
robust public safety package--legislation rooted in two of Democrats'
most cherished values: safety and justice.
On behalf of our Caucus and the Congress, I salute the persistent,
values-driven leadership of CBC Chairwoman Joyce Beatty and Members of
the CBC--ensuring that accountability is central to our efforts.
Let us also commend Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal and
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for their tireless efforts to advance the goal
of public safety for all.
We applaud the committed leaders of the legislation before us today:
Congressman Josh Gottheimer, Congresswoman Katie Porter, Congressman
Steven Horsford, and Congresswoman Val Demings.
And thank you to Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler and Energy & Commerce
Chair Frank Pallone for steering this legislation to the Floor.
House Democrats believe that every American deserves to live in a
safe community--where they and their family can thrive.
For us, this is a deeply held value.
And that is why our Majority has long sought--and today, continues to
take--strong, commonsense action to fund our police, giving them the
tools they need to prevent crime.
Let me be clear: Democrats salute our law enforcement heroes.
And we have fought to support them: securing a half-billion-dollar
increase for local and state law enforcement in March's Appropriations
legislation.
At the same time, we remain fully committed to improving training and
accountability among the law enforcement ranks.
Our nation remains outraged at the scourge of systemic racism and
brutality targeting communities of color and marginalized communities--
knowing that it remains a serious threat to safety.
That is why Democrats will never stop fighting for the fundamental
transformation that our culture of policing demands--which goes hand-
in-hand with our unyielding commitment to public safety.
Our George Floyd Justice in Policing Act--twice passed by the House--
includes strong, unprecedented reforms to save lives: from banning
chokeholds; to stopping no-knock warrants; to combating racial
profiling; to establishing nationwide standards against misconduct.
Sadly, this urgent and necessary legislation was blocked by
Republicans.
But under the leadership of our brilliant, relentless Congresswoman
Karen Bass, we will not rest until these life-saving measures are the
law of the land.
Today, with our four bills, we seek to take a strong step to build
stronger, healthier relationships between law enforcement and those
they serve.
And together, they will help prevent crime, save lives and advance
justice.
Our Invest to Protect Act funds our police, with grants to: help
small, local law enforcement agencies retain and recruit officers;
require the Attorney General to evaluate and collect data on how police
departments are using the funds to reduce the use of force; and invest
in strong accountability measures, including: training for de-
escalation, responding to substance use disorders, supporting survivors
of domestic violence, and promoting a duty of care.
[[Page H8080]]
Our Mental Health Justice Act will help send unarmed mental health
professionals to respond to mental health crises in our neighborhoods:
crucial action to save lives.
Our Break the Cycle of Violence Act invests in effective, evidence-
based community violence intervention initiatives--building on the
lifesaving progress we forged in our American Rescue Plan.
Our VICTIM Act will bolster the ability of police forces to solve
homicides, sexual assaults, shootings and other violent crimes: a
necessary step to ensure justice is served and improve trust in law
enforcement.
In the same spirit, House Democrats take immense pride in our work so
far this Congress to keep America's families safe from harm.
Under the magnificent leadership of President Biden, we enacted an
historic gun violence prevention law--which is saving lives by getting
deadly weapons out of dangerous hands.
Meanwhile, the House has successfully passed legislation reinstating
the Assault Weapons Ban and establishing an AMBER Alert-style warning
during shootings--measures that strongly support our law enforcement.
And this Congress, our Majority has also passed legislation to:
require universal background checks, promote safe storage, and ban bump
stocks, high-capacity magazines and ghost guns.
Make no mistake: our colleagues across the aisle overwhelmingly voted
against all of these measures.
Because they fail to realize that preventing gun crime is a crucial
piece of the puzzle in building safer communities--especially for our
children.
Madam Speaker. Every Member who has the special privilege of serving
in these hallowed halls takes a sacred oath to the American people.
That oath--which is blind to party affiliation--is to ``protect &
defend.''
And with this package today, the House is honoring this foremost
responsibility.
So I encourage every Member to join us in putting People Over
Politics--and vote for safer communities in every corner of the
country.
With that, I urge a resounding, bipartisan AYE vote on all four bills
in this strong public safety package.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________