[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 153 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8096-H8100]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




VIOLENT INCIDENT CLEARANCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIVE METHODS ACT 
                                OF 2022

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1377, I call up 
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, 
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1377, in lieu 
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on the Judiciary 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 House Report 117-483, is 
adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5768

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Violent Incident Clearance 
     and Technological Investigative Methods Act of 2022'' or 
     ``VICTIM Act of 2022''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Research indicates that law enforcement agencies can 
     increase clearance rates by improving--
       (A) investigative processes;
       (B) detective capacities; and
       (C) organizational oversight and supervision of 
     investigations.
       (2) When a law enforcement agency expends additional 
     investigative effort, the law enforcement agency improves its 
     success in gaining cooperation of key witnesses and increases 
     the amount of forensic evidence collected.
       (3) Effective investigation of shootings can prevent 
     subsequent related violence by--
       (A) deterring retaliation; and
       (B) providing interventions to individuals who may continue 
     to commit crimes or become victims of retaliatory violence.
       (4) Law enforcement agencies that demonstrate higher rates 
     of clearance for violent crimes committed against a person--
       (A) have more structured oversight and formal interactions 
     between investigative units and agency leadership;
       (B) are more likely to have investigative units that have 
     collaborative relationships and robust information sharing 
     with other units of the law enforcement agency;
       (C) have investigative units that have specific goals and 
     performance metrics for both the unit and for investigators 
     within the unit;
       (D) have investigators who more frequently respond to the 
     initial crime scene shortly after crimes have been reported 
     to collect evidence and interview witnesses;
       (E) have investigators who either have specialized 
     experience before joining investigative units or are trained 
     in investigations once they join those units;
       (F) often have standard operating procedures for 
     investigations that establish policies and evidence-based 
     best practices for conducting and completing homicide 
     investigations; and
       (G) have better relationships with the communities they 
     serve, even if no specific community-oriented campaign or 
     initiative exists between investigative units and community 
     groups.
       (5) Criminal justice agencies should collaborate with each 
     other and share best practices for solving violent crimes 
     committed against a person.
       (6) A comprehensive community engagement strategy 
     concerning gun violence is essential to improving clearance 
     rates for violent crimes committed against a person.

     SEC. 3. GRANT PROGRAM WITH RESPECT TO VIOLENT INCIDENT 
                   CLEARANCE AND TECHNOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIVE 
                   METHODS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Clearance by arrest.--The term ``clearance by arrest'', 
     with respect to an offense reported to a law enforcement 
     agency, means the law enforcement agency--
       (A) has--
       (i) arrested not less than 1 person for the offense;
       (ii) charged the person described in subparagraph (A) with 
     the commission of the offense; and
       (iii) referred the person described in subparagraph (A) for 
     prosecution for the offense; or
       (B) has cited an individual under the age of 18 to appear 
     in juvenile court or before another juvenile authority with 
     respect to the offense, regardless of whether a physical 
     arrest occurred.
       (2) Clearance by exception.--The term ``clearance by 
     exception'', with respect to an offense reported to a law 
     enforcement agency, means the law enforcement agency--
       (A) has identified not less than 1 person suspected of the 
     offense; and
       (B) with respect to the suspect described in subparagraph 
     (A), has--
       (i) gathered enough evidence to--

       (I) support an arrest of the suspect;
       (II) make a charge against the suspect; and
       (III) refer the suspect for prosecution;

       (ii) identified the exact location of the suspect so that 
     the suspect could be taken into custody immediately; and
       (iii) encountered a circumstance outside the control of the 
     law enforcement agency that prohibits the agency from 
     arresting the suspect, charging the suspect, or referring the 
     suspect for prosecution, including--

       (I) the death of the suspect;
       (II) the refusal of the victim to cooperate with the 
     prosecution after the suspect has been identified; or
       (III) the denial of extradition because the suspect 
     committed an offense in another jurisdiction and is being 
     prosecuted for that offense.

       (3) Clearance rate.--The term ``clearance rate'', with 
     respect to a law enforcement agency, means--
       (A) the number of offenses cleared by the law enforcement 
     agency, including through clearance by arrest and clearance 
     by exception, divided by
       (B) the total number of offenses reported to the law 
     enforcement agency.
       (4) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a 
     State, Tribal, or local law enforcement agency or prosecuting 
     office, or a group of Tribal law enforcement agencies or 
     Tribal prosecuting offices.
       (5) Grant recipient.--The term ``grant recipient'' means a 
     recipient of a grant under the Program.
       (6) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement 
     agency'' means a public agency charged with policing 
     functions, including any component bureau of the agency (such 
     as a governmental victim services program or village public 
     safety officer program), including an agency composed of 
     officers or persons referred to in subparagraph (B) or (C) of 
     section 2(10) of the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act (25 
     U.S.C. 2801(10)).
       (7) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the grant program 
     established under subsection (b)(1).
       (b) Grant Program.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a 
     grant program within the Office of Justice Programs under 
     which the Attorney General awards grants to eligible entities 
     to establish, implement, and administer violent incident 
     clearance and technological investigative methods.
       (2) Applications.--An eligible entity seeking a grant under 
     the Program shall submit to the Attorney General an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing or 
     accompanied by--
       (A) such information as the Attorney General may reasonably 
     require; and
       (B) a description of each eligible project under paragraph 
     (4) that the grant will fund.
       (3) Selection of grant recipients.--The Attorney General, 
     in selecting a recipient of a grant under the Program, shall 
     consider the specific plan and activities proposed by the 
     applicant to improve clearance rates for homicides, rapes, 
     sexual assaults, kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings.
       (4) Eligible projects.--A grant recipient shall use the 
     grant for activities with the specific objective of improving 
     clearance rates for homicides, rapes, sexual assaults, 
     kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings, including--
       (A) ensuring the retention of detectives who are assigned 
     to investigate homicides, rapes, sexual assaults, 
     kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings as of the date of 
     receipt of the grant;
       (B) hiring and training additional detectives who will be 
     dedicated to investigating homicides, rapes, sexual assaults, 
     kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings;
       (C) developing policies, procedures, and training to 
     improve the ability of detectives to effectively investigate 
     and solve homicides, rapes, sexual assaults, kidnappings, and 
     non-fatal shootings, including implementing best practices 
     relating to--
       (i) improving internal agency cooperation, organizational 
     oversight and accountability, and supervision of 
     investigations;
       (ii) developing specific goals and performance metrics for 
     both investigators and investigative units;

[[Page H8097]]

       (iii) establishing or improving relationships with the 
     communities the agency serves; and
       (iv) collaboration with and among other law enforcement 
     agencies and criminal justice organizations;
       (D) training personnel to address the needs of victims and 
     family members of victims of homicides, rapes, sexual 
     assaults, kidnappings, or non-fatal shootings or 
     collaborating with trained victim advocates and specialists 
     to better meet victims' needs;
       (E) acquiring, upgrading, or replacing investigative, 
     evidence processing, or forensic testing technology or 
     equipment;
       (F) development and implementation of policies that 
     safeguard civil rights and civil liberties during the 
     collection, processing, and forensic testing of evidence;
       (G) hiring or training personnel for collection, 
     processing, and forensic testing of evidence;
       (H) hiring and training of personnel to analyze violent 
     crime and the temporal and geographic trends among homicides, 
     rapes, sexual assaults, kidnappings, and nonfatal shootings;
       (I) retaining experts to conduct a detailed analysis of 
     homicides and shootings using Gun Violence Problem Analysis 
     (commonly known as ``GVPA'') or a similar research 
     methodology;
       (J) ensuring victims have appropriate access to emergency 
     food, housing, clothing, travel, and transportation;
       (K) developing competitive and evidence-based programs to 
     improve homicide and non-fatal shooting clearance rates;
       (L) developing best practices for improving access to and 
     acceptance of victim services, including victim services that 
     promote medical and psychological wellness, ongoing 
     counseling, legal advice, and financial compensation;
       (M) training investigators and detectives in trauma-
     informed interview techniques;
       (N) establishing programs to support officers who 
     experience stress or trauma as a result of responding to or 
     investigating shootings or other violent crime incidents; or
       (O) ensuring language and disability access supports are 
     provided to victims, survivors, and their families so that 
     victims can exercise their rights and participate in the 
     criminal justice process.
       (c) Federal Share.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a project 
     assisted with a grant under the Program shall not exceed--
       (A) 100 percent if the grant is awarded on or before 
     December 31, 2032; or
       (B) subject to paragraph (2), 50 percent if the grant is 
     awarded after December 31, 2032.
       (2) Waiver.--With respect to a grant awarded under the 
     Program after December 31, 2032, the Attorney General may 
     determine that the Federal share of the cost of a project 
     assisted with the grant shall not exceed 100 percent.
       (d) Report by Grant Recipient.--Not later than 1 year after 
     receiving a grant under the Program, and each year 
     thereafter, a grant recipient shall submit to the Attorney 
     General a report on the activities carried out using the 
     grant, including, if applicable--
       (1) the number of homicide and non-fatal shooting 
     detectives hired by the grant recipient;
       (2) the number of evidence processing personnel hired by 
     the grant recipient;
       (3) a description of any training that is--
       (A) provided to existing (as of the date on which the grant 
     was awarded) or newly hired homicide and non-fatal shooting 
     detectives; and
       (B) designed to assist in the solving of crimes and improve 
     clearance rates;
       (4) any new evidence processing technology or equipment 
     purchased or any upgrades made to existing (as of the date on 
     which the grant was awarded) evidence technology or 
     equipment, and the associated cost;
       (5) any assessments of evidence processing technology or 
     equipment purchased with grant funds to determine whether 
     such technology or equipment satisfies the objectives of the 
     use of the technology or equipment in increasing clearance 
     rates, and any policies in place to govern the use of the 
     technology or equipment;
       (6) the internal policies and oversight used to ensure that 
     any technology purchased through the grant for the purposes 
     of improving clearance rates does not violate the civil 
     rights and civil liberties of individuals;
       (7) data regarding clearance rates for homicides, rapes, 
     other aggravated felonies, and non-fatal shootings, including 
     the rate of clearances by arrest and clearances by exception, 
     and crime trends from within each jurisdiction in which the 
     grant recipient carried out activities supported by the 
     grant;
       (8) whether the grant recipient has provided grant funds to 
     any victim services organizations, and if so, which 
     organizations;
       (9) the demographic information for victims of homicides, 
     rapes, other aggravated felonies, and non-fatal shootings, 
     and the length and outcomes of each investigation, including 
     whether the investigation was cleared by arrest or exception;
       (10) the demographic information for each victim or family 
     member of a victim who received victim-related services 
     provided by the grant recipient; and
       (11) identification of the services most used by victims 
     and their families and identification of additional services 
     needed.
       (e) National Institute of Justice Evaluation and Report to 
     Congress.--
       (1) Evaluation.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the 
     Director of the National Institute of Justice shall conduct 
     an evaluation of--
       (A) the practices deployed by grant recipients to identify 
     policies and procedures that have successfully improved 
     clearance rates for homicides, rapes, sexual assaults, 
     kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings; and
       (B) the efficacy of any services provided to victims and 
     family members of victims of homicides, rapes, sexual 
     assaults, kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings.
       (2) Report to congress.--Not later than 30 days after 
     completion of an evaluation by the National Institute of 
     Justice under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall 
     submit to Congress a report including--
       (A) the results of the evaluation; and
       (B) information reported by each grant recipient under 
     subsection (d).
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2023 through 2032.
       (2) Percent for certain eligible entities.--The Attorney 
     General shall use 10 percent of the amount made available 
     under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year to award grants under 
     the Program to Tribal law enforcement agencies or prosecuting 
     offices, or groups of such agencies or offices.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).


                             General Leave

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material on H.R. 5768.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5768, the VICTIM Act of 2022, is bipartisan 
legislation that would help law enforcement improve clearance rates for 
homicides, rapes, sexual assaults, kidnappings, and nonfatal shootings.
  As communities continue to face increased gun violence and violent 
crime, this bill is a vital step toward improving public safety.
  Again, let me be clear: Democrats have always stood for equitable 
funding for law enforcement. In fact, Democratic-led cities and States 
have consistently funded law enforcement at much higher per capita 
rates than Republican-led cities, while also recognizing the need for 
law enforcement accountability and improving public trust.
  To address the challenges our law enforcement agencies are facing, 
this bill would provide funding and support for agencies to hire and 
train detectives and investigators to improve case clearance rates.
  Low clearance rates not only prevent victims from accessing justice, 
but they also damage the public's trust in law enforcement. By 
investing in the personnel and technology needed to solve cases of 
homicide and other serious crimes, agencies can help build public 
confidence and improve community safety.
  In providing State, local, and Tribal agencies with additional 
resources, the VICTIM Act will equip agencies to better respond to and 
investigate these serious crimes, bringing justice for victims and 
keeping our communities safe.
  I thank Representative Val Demings and her bipartisan cosponsors for 
their leadership on this issue and for introducing this important 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, for reasons we have articulated on the 
previous bills, we oppose this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Demings), the sponsor of this legislation and a member of 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Mrs. DEMINGS. Mr. Speaker, real life is quite different from 
television or political buffoonery. Half of gun murders in the United 
States go unsolved. Victims are too often left with no justice and 
their families with little support.
  Who amongst us believes that murderers or violent criminals should 
not be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law? I pray, 
Mr. Speaker, that no one in this Chamber really believes that.

[[Page H8098]]

  But, today, we will witness with our own eyes who actually wants to 
fund the police. I learned a long time ago, don't just listen to what 
they say but watch what they do.
  As a former law enforcement officer, I vividly recall being on the 
scene of young people dead as a result of violence, knowing that their 
families would soon receive devastating news. We all know that there 
will be more families who receive those calls. I want to make sure that 
there are experts, trained and ready, who can help them through those 
horrible moments.
  Mr. Speaker, I saw as a detective, a detective sergeant, and a chief 
of police that violent crimes require a coordinated and professional 
response to ensure a word that we really need to get familiar with in 
this Chamber, and that word is ``justice.''
  We know that far too many police departments just do not have the 
resources they need to solve these heinous crimes. That is why I 
introduced the VICTIM Act.
  I have even heard one of my former law enforcement colleagues suggest 
that the Department of Justice has already provided enough resources.
  Let me be clear about what this bill does. This legislation provides 
additional Federal resources for State, Tribal, and local law 
enforcement agencies to make sure that our men and women in blue--
remember, back the blue--have the support they need to do their jobs, 
that survivors of violent crime have the support they need to try, Mr. 
Speaker, to rebuild.
  But this is not a blank check. This funding must specifically be used 
for the hiring and training of detectives and victim support 
specialists.
  Further, recipients would be required to regularly report how the 
money was spent and how it affected clearance rates for homicides and 
nonfatal shootings.
  The National Institute of Justice will evaluate these reports and see 
what works and see what did not work. We are demanding results, or at 
least we should be because our communities are demanding results.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Mrs. DEMINGS. As the chief of police in Orlando, we were laser-
focused on reducing violent crimes. I ask my colleagues who like to 
talk about violent crime to join us in reducing violent crime. We were 
able to do so because we had the resources to do so.
  This legislation is supported by the FOP, the National Organization 
of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Major Cities Chiefs 
Association, the National Policing Institute, and the National 
Association of Police Organizations.

  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join us in backing the blue.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my friend and colleague and 
a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 2020, mobs of radical 
leftists burned our cities, preyed on innocent citizens, attacked our 
police officers, and occupied business districts during what one 
leftist Democrat mayor called the summer of love. At least 25 people 
were killed.
  Republicans called for law and order. Democrats called for defunding 
our police departments and releasing dangerous criminals onto our 
streets, often within hours of their arrests. In the cities they 
controlled, they did just that.
  In those cities, crime has skyrocketed, including the fastest 
increase in homicides ever recorded in our Nation. Ironically, the 
greatest victims are their own constituents, who are now turning on 
them.
  Crime doesn't concern House Democrats, but losing political support 
before an election, that scares them to death, so we have these bills 
brought hurriedly to the floor today.
  Let me point out the obvious. Republican communities have backed 
their police departments with the local funds and the moral support 
they need to do their jobs. Democratic cities have defunded and 
demonized their police departments.
  The Democrats' response is to take the taxes paid by the citizens who 
fully funded their police departments and give them to those Democratic 
cities that have cut them, and still virtually none of the money they 
propose to spend is for actual law enforcement. It is, rather, for 
intervention, de-escalation, training, public health, and social work 
training, all administered by the increasingly corrupt and politicized 
Department of Justice.
  We have watched the Democrats utterly destroy the cities that they 
have dominated for decades. Do we really want to let them do the same 
thing to our country?
  Americans need to ask themselves how much farther down this dismal 
road they are willing to go. We can restore safety to all of our 
communities the moment we summon the political will to do so.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is a victims' act. So many of us 
have worked with our law enforcement and victims.
  The VICTIM Act would provide $100 million annually in grant funding 
to law enforcement agencies and prosecuting officers to bolster their 
ability to investigate and clear cases of homicide, rape, sexual 
assault, kidnapping, and nonfatal shootings. All have family members 
that are left wondering and in pain. This VICTIM Act, as someone who 
has always worked with victims, ensures that they are not left empty.
  Homicide clearance rates, in particular, have dropped consistently 
since the 1960s, leaving many unsolved cases and many victims and their 
families still searching. I want my colleagues to have a heart. They 
are still searching for justice.
  This legislation by Congresswoman Demings addresses the challenges 
our law enforcement agencies are facing in solving homicides and other 
violent crimes in red States and blue States. This critical funding 
would help agencies improve their clearance rates through various 
means. It helps retain detectives. It helps in training personnel.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. It provides for low clearance rates, which 
disproportionately affect victims and families of victims of 
marginalized communities. Not only do they prevent victims from 
accessing justice, but they also damage the public's trust.
  I have given money to help victims, and victims say: ``Do you know 
what? We are left alone,'' the victims or families. ``We are left alone 
to address this disparity.''
  This bill will help not leave them alone, keep pressure on finding 
that culprit, that individual who violated them, that criminal who has 
violated them, and also by providing agencies with additional 
resources.
  This $100 million is to help victims. Is there anybody on the floor 
that wants to join in a bipartisan manner to help victims or to work 
with law enforcement who are on the job, who are saying: We need help 
because victims need help, and we certainly need to solve the crimes 
for these families who are longing to understand about their loved ones 
who have been raped, assaulted, and those who have lost their lives.
  I remind my colleagues of the father and baby in my community who 
were found dead. They need help.
  Support the VICTIM Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5768, Violent Incident 
Clearance and Technological Investigative Methods Act of 2022'' or the 
``VICTIM Act,'' that would provide $100 million annually in grant 
funding to law enforcement agencies and prosecuting offices to bolster 
their ability to investigate and clear cases of homicide, rape, sexual 
assault, kidnapping, and non-fatal shootings.
  As someone who has always supported law enforcement, let me state 
plainly--this bill is about funding law enforcement agencies--not 
defunding them.
  Homicide clearance rates, in particular, have dropped consistently 
since the 1960's leaving many unsolved cases and many victims and their 
families still searching for justice. In 2020, the clearance rate for 
homicides fell to roughly 50 percent while pressure on law enforcement 
officials increased--leading to calls for more funding for overburdened 
departments with sizable caseloads and depleted resources.

[[Page H8099]]

  To address the challenges our law enforcement agencies are facing in 
solving homicides and other violent crime--in red states and blue 
states--this critical funding would help agencies improve their 
clearance rates through various means, including:
  ensuring retention of detectives assigned to violent crimes;
  hiring and training additional detectives and investigators dedicated 
specifically to investigating homicides and other violent crimes;
  hiring and training personnel for collecting, processing, and testing 
forensic evidence; and
  hiring and training personnel to analyze violent crime trends.
  Low clearance rates--which disproportionately affect victims and 
families of victims of marginalized communities--not only prevent 
victims from accessing justice, but they also damage the public's trust 
in law enforcement.
  To address this disparity, funding in the bill could be used to train 
personnel to address the needs of victims and family members and 
develop competitive and evidence-based programs and practices to 
improve both clearance rates and victim services--thereby rebuilding 
public confidence and improving community safety.
  The bill would also ensure victim services programs are funded, 
staffed, and trained, and that they provide restorative support to 
victims and their families.
  Investing in personnel as well as the technology needed to solve 
cases of homicide and other violent crime, also helps build public 
confidence and improve community safety.
  That is why H.R. 5768's funding can be used to acquire, upgrade, or 
replace investigative or evidence processing technology or equipment.
  By providing agencies with additional resources--drawing from an 
authorized amount of $100 million dollars--the VICTIM Act would equip 
agencies to better respond to and investigate serious crimes--
delivering justice to victims and making our communities safer.
  I commend Representative Val Demings for championing this thoughtful, 
bipartisan legislation and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter dated November 1, 2021, 
from the Major Cities Chiefs Association and an article from Third Way 
titled ``The Red City Defund Police Problem.''

                              Major Cities Chiefs Association,

                                                 November 1, 2021.
     Hon. Val Demings,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rep. Demings: I write on behalf of the Major Cities 
     Chiefs Association (MCCA) to register our strong support for 
     H.R. 5768, the VICTIM Act. The MCCA is a professional 
     organization of police executives representing the largest 
     cities in the United States and Canada.
       Nearly every major city in the United States is contending 
     with a rise in violent crime. According to the MCCA's most 
     recent Violent Crime Survey, comparing midyear 2020 with 
     midyear 2021, homicides are up roughly 20 percent in major 
     cities. In addition, most MCCA members have reported 
     significant increases in gun violence, evidenced by the 
     uptick in aggravated assaults.
       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 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 our 
     brave law enforcement officers. The MCCA stands ready to help 
     advance this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jeri Williams,
                                 Chief, Phoenix Police Department,
     President, Major Cities Chiefs Association.
                                  ____


                     [From Third Way, June 8, 2022]

                   The Red City Defund Police Problem

    (By Jim Kessler, Executive Vice President for Policy, and Kylie 
                    Murdock, Executive Coordinator)

       In recent years, Republicans have tagged Democrats as the 
     party of ``defund the police.'' This political charge has at 
     it roots an unfortunate choice of sloganeering and policy 
     from a small number of progressive activists frustrated and 
     fed up with longstanding police violence and abuse directed 
     toward minorities. However intentioned, the defund charge 
     proved damaging to Democrats. Republicans ran myriad attack 
     ads in 2020 and the attack was credited with Republican 
     upsets in swing districts that narrowed Democratic majorities 
     in the House. This attack was so successful that during his 
     2022 State of the Union address, President Biden felt 
     compelled to say, ``We should all agree: The answer is not to 
     defund the police. The answer is to fund the police. Fund 
     them. Fund them. The President also dedicated $10 billion 
     from the American Rescue Plan for public safety, including 
     $6.5 billion in crime-fighting aid to state and local 
     communities.
       But is the Republican charge even remotely true? It has 
     been taken as a given by much of the media just as Democrats 
     have been pigeon-holed as soft on crime and being responsible 
     for rampant crime across the country. Yet as our March 2022 
     report showed, the 25 states that voted for Donald Trump had 
     a murder rate 40% higher than the 25 states that voted for 
     Joe Biden. And 8 of the 10 states with the highest murder 
     rates not only voted for Donald Trump, they voted Republican 
     in every presidential election this century. Is the 
     Democrats, defund the police portrait as inaccurate as its 
     soft on crime portrait?
       To answer this question, we compared the police budgets of 
     the 25 largest Democrat-run cities and the 25 largest 
     Republican-run cities. We pulled FY2021 and FY2022 funding 
     data directly from city operating budgets, as well as police 
     force data from a mixture of police department websites, city 
     budgets, and local news sources. Using this, we calculated 
     several key metrics--the number of police officers, police 
     officers per capita, police funding per capita, and percent 
     change in police budgets from FY2021 to FY2022. Per capita 
     data allows us to control for population and compare cities 
     like New York City and Fort Worth.
       We found that despite conventional wisdom to the contrary, 
     Democrat-run cities employ far more police officers and spend 
     far more money on policing per capita than Republican-run 
     cities. In fact, police forces in Dem cities are 75 percent 
     larger than police forces in GOP cities. And Democrats spend 
     about 38 percent more per person on policing than Republicans 
     do. On average, Democrat- and Republican-run cities all saw 
     an increase in police funding in 2022, with Democrats 
     actually increasing police budgets by slightly more.
       The data make clear-Republicans may talk about funding the 
     police, but they trail badly as compared to Democrats.


   Dem cities employ more police officers per capita than GOP cities

       The size of a city's police force is often seen as 
     indicative of its support for law enforcement. Democrats have 
     been accused of defunding the police and cutting police 
     funding and staff. We compared the 25 most populous cities 
     run by each party as defined by the political affiliation of 
     its mayor to see if this potent political charge is true.
       The 25 most populous Democratic cities run from New York 
     City with 8,177,025 inhabitants to Memphis with 650,980. The 
     25 most populous Republican cities run from Jacksonville with 
     a population of 949,611 to Glendale in Arizona with 248,325 
     residents. In total, the 25 most populous Democratic cities 
     are home to 37,470,584 people, while the commensurate 25 
     Republican cities have a combined total of 10,415,763.
       We found that in the aggregate:
       Democrat-run cities employ 288.2 officers per 100,000 
     residents, compared to Republican-run cities with only 164.6 
     officers per 100,000 residents.
       Police forces in cities with Democratic mayors are 75.1% 
     larger than police forces in GOP cities.
       Of the ten cities with the largest per capita police 
     forces, nine are run by Democrats--Washington DC, Chicago, 
     Las Vegas, New York City, Detroit, Philadelphia, Memphis, 
     Boston, and Los Angeles. Miami, coming in at ninth, is the 
     only Republican-run city in the top ten.
       We also compared the median per capita police force average 
     since larger cities like New York and Los Angeles can skew 
     results. Among these same cities, those with Democratic 
     mayors had a median of 195.3 officers per 100,000 residents, 
     or 23.1 percent more than the 158.7 median for Republican run 
     cities.
       The size of a city didn't seem to be a determining factor 
     in the per capita rate of police officers. For example, 
     Phoenix, San Antonio, and San Diego ranked 5th, 6th, and 8th 
     in population, but ranked 34th, 40th, and 42nd in police per 
     capita. Meanwhile, Las Vegas, Detroit, Memphis, and Miami 
     ranked 25th, 27th, 28th and 33rd in population, but ranked 
     3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th in police per capita. Oklahoma City 
     and Las Vegas have nearly identical populations (676,492 
     versus 675,592), but Republican-led Oklahoma City had a 
     police force roughly onethird the size of Las Vegas with its 
     Democratic mayor (162.6 officers compared to 444.1 per 
     100,000 residents).


        Dem cities spend more money on policing than GOP cities

       Republicans have decried Democrats, attempts to cut police 
     budgets in liberal cities across the country. But we found 
     that Democrats spend more on policing than Republicans do.
       Republican-run cities spend $361 per resident on police. 
     Democrat-run cities spend $498 per resident, about 38 percent 
     more than Republicans. Because aggregate police budgets can 
     be skewed by larger cities, we also looked at the median per 
     capita police budgets for these sets of 25 cities. Once 
     again, Democrat-run cities had median police budgets 31 
     percent greater than Republican-run cities, $423.55 to 
     $323.40 per resident.
       Of the ten cities that spent the most on policing per 
     capita, six of them are Democrat-run and four are Republican-
     run. Cities often criticized by Republicans for being ``soft-
     on-crime''--New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, 
     Seattle--are all in the top 15 on police funding per person. 
     Republican strongholds like Bakersfield and Oklahoma City 
     spend less than half of what New York City and Chicago spend 
     on their police.


Dem cities saw slightly larger police budget increases than GOP cities 
                                in 2022

       Defund the police may exist as a slogan, but it does not 
     exist as a policy--at least in

[[Page H8100]]

     the 50 cities that we reviewed. Between FY2021 to FY2022, 
     Democrat-run cities saw a 4.34 percent increase in police 
     funding--from $17.89 billion to $18.67 billion, or about 775 
     million in the aggregate. Republican-run cities saw a 4.11 
     percent increase--from $3.62 billion to $3.76 billion, $148 
     million in the aggregate.
       Twenty-one of 25 Democratic cities and 21 of 25 Republican 
     cities showed budget increases in FY2022. Cities like New 
     York and Los Angeles are often mentioned in defund the police 
     attacks--both cities increased their police budgets in 2022. 
     In fact, the ten largest Democrat-run cities increased their 
     police budgets in 2022, though Philadelphia's held fairly 
     constant with a 0.28 percent increase. New York City's 
     increase of 3.75 percent added $196 million. Chicago, 
     Portland, and Seattle--cities often accused of defunding the 
     police--all saw increases in their 2022 police budgets. 
     Paradoxically, Washington DC had the largest budget cut of 
     3.98 percent but also the largest police budget per resident 
     at $751.62.


                               Conclusion

       Democrats have been accused of defunding the police as a 
     larger ``soft on crime'' message from Republican 
     officeholders and conservative media. In a previous report, 
     we found that homicide rates were significantly higher in the 
     25 states that voted for Trump compared to the 25 states that 
     voted for Biden.
       In this report, we find that police funding and police 
     personnel levels are far higher in the 25 largest Democrat-
     run cities compared to the 25 largest Republican-run cities. 
     In the most recent funding cycle, these same Democratic 
     cities increased their police budgets to a greater degree 
     than cities with Republican mayors.
       Our conclusion is that the defund the police charge against 
     Democrats may be politically damaging, but it is factually 
     inaccurate. If anything, Republican mayors have a defund 
     problem.

  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I am a freshman, and the whole 
time I have been here I have been talking about crime and the rise in 
crime and how the Republican Party has supported the police.
  Down South, we use a lot of common sense sometimes to solve issues, 
and the biggest issue we have right now in the country is the border. 
So what happens is that the drugs and the human trafficking follow 
through and goes to these cities. That is why we are seeing a rise in 
fentanyl.
  One of the things I have observed is they use backpacks for the 
heroin and cocaine and fentanyl to pay their passage to the drug 
cartel.
  So now the Democrats are panicked because we have an open border. We 
also have a rise in crime. It is just curious to me that now, all of 
sudden, we want to address these issues.
  If you just look at the record across the country, Republican cities 
seem to manage crime so much better. So I don't think that more money 
is always a solution. Very often it is more management and local 
control.
  I encourage a ``no'' on this, and I am honored to speak on this.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the legislation, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the VICTIM Act is bipartisan legislation that would 
increase public safety and improve law enforcement practices. The rise 
in violent crime affects every community across the country, not just 
Democratic communities.
  But we also know that public safety and respect for civil rights can 
coexist. Building healthy and strong communities does not require us to 
choose between our rights and our safety.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings) for introducing 
this important legislation, which is supported by a wide range of law 
enforcement associations.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support it, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1377, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. 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.

                          ____________________