[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.

                          ____________________