[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 82 (Tuesday, May 16, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2360-H2369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2494, PROTECT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT 
  WITH IMMIGRATION CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR 
  CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3091, FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SERVICE 
 WEAPON PURCHASE ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 
     40, EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND 
    CONDEMNING EFFORTS TO DEFUND OR DISMANTLE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                                AGENCIES

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 398 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 398

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2494) to make the assault of a law enforcement 
     officer a deportable offense, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
     or their respective designees. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 118-4. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3091) to allow Federal law enforcement officers to purchase 
     retired service weapons, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their 
     respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, it 
     shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the 
     purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 118-5. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H. 
     Con. Res. 40) expressing support for local law enforcement 
     officers and condemning efforts to defund or dismantle local 
     law enforcement agencies. All points of order against 
     consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. The 
     concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the concurrent resolution are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the concurrent resolution and preamble, and on any 
     amendment thereto, to adoption without intervening motion or 
     demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour 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) the amendment printed in 
     part C of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the 
     report, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     separately debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The gentlewoman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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.

                              {time}  1215


                             General Leave

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate the rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 2494, the Protect Our Law enforcement with 
Immigration Control and Enforcement Act of 2023, or the POLICE Act; 
H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase 
Act; and H. Con. Res. 40, expressing support for local law enforcement 
officers and condemning efforts to defund or dismantle local law 
enforcement agencies.
  It provides for structured rules for all three bills and makes in 
order Democratic as well as Republican amendments.
  Given all that our police officers do for our communities each and 
every day, I am honored to stand here in defense of this legislation to 
support them.
  According to the FBI, assaults on law enforcement officers increased 
by 11.2 percent from 2020 to 2021. Many of these violent crimes have 
been committed by illegal aliens. As this administration continues to 
let the crisis at the border spiral out of control, these types of 
assaults will continue to increase.
  There are things we can do to deter criminal assaults and protect our 
officers. The POLICE Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality 
Act to clearly state that the assault of a law enforcement officer is a 
deportable offense. If those who have been given the privilege of 
coming here cannot respect our laws or those who enforce them,

[[Page H2361]]

they should not enjoy the benefit of remaining in our country.
  The second bill under consideration today, H.R. 3091, would allow law 
enforcement officers to buy retired and surplus military service 
weapons at fair market value, so long as the officer is in good 
standing with their employed agency. Under current law, Federal law 
enforcement agencies are required to destroy retired and unneeded 
firearms. The Fraternal Order of Police estimates that this wastes up 
to $8 million a year. This bill is a commonsense solution to save 
taxpayer dollars and support law enforcement officers.
  Finally, H. Con. Res. 40 expresses Congress' support for local law 
enforcement officers and condemns efforts to defund or dismantle local 
law enforcement agencies.
  Unfortunately, because there are people out there, even some serving 
in Congress, who want to defund the police and want to continue the 
anti-law enforcement rhetoric, this bill is necessary.
  In a time when police officers are regularly attacked for their 
profession, 2021 being the deadliest year in two decades for law 
enforcement officers, according to the FBI, it can never be stated 
enough that the U.S. Congress supports this country's police officers.
  The brave men and women across this Nation who risk their lives every 
day need to know that we condemn any efforts to defund them, and we 
support them. They need to know that we stand with them and are here to 
do everything in our power to protect them in the way they protect and 
serve our communities. That is why I encourage my colleagues to stand 
with me and support these pieces of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I begin today with a story. Once upon a time in 
Congress, House Republicans put forward their top agenda, a package of 
bills so crucial, so urgent, that teeing them up for consideration was 
one of the very first things we did on the floor of this Congress--
after, of course, Kevin McCarthy's 15 votes for Speaker.
  Tucked into this package was a little bill about supporting the 
police, H. Con. Res. 5, a simple, nonbinding resolution, really, that 
didn't do much. It was purely symbolic, but it did express support for 
our Nation's police, all of our Nation's police.
  But something mysterious happened, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will 
join me in trying to solve that mystery today.
  Instead of bringing their bill up right away, Republicans waited, and 
they waited, and they waited. They waited until this week, and they 
brought up a bill, but something changed. See, in the original bill, 
the language read that Congress expresses support for the Nation's law 
enforcement agencies.
  As you can see, Mr. Speaker, ``Nation's,'' ``Nation's.'' It was about 
all of our police. In their new bill, the one that we are considering 
today, they only express support for local enforcement officers.
  Here is the new bill, Mr. Speaker. We see the word ``local,'' 
``local''--nothing about our Nation's law enforcement officers, just 
``local.'' Huh. That is weird. What a strange change.
  It is National Police Week, but they took out all of our national 
police agencies. Democrats searched and searched and searched for a 
reason. We looked high and low in the Rules Committee, but we couldn't 
find an answer.
  Not a single person, not one Republican, Mr. Speaker, has been able 
to articulate to us who made that change, when it was made, or, most 
importantly, why it was made.
  No one was able to explain to us why Republicans edited their bill 
from saying ``any efforts to defund or dismantle law enforcement 
agencies'' to any ``efforts to defund or dismantle local law 
enforcement agencies.''
  Here is the important thing, and call it the moral of the story, if 
you will. The change was not without consequence because what the GOP 
did was cut out every officer at the FBI, ATF, CBP, U.S. Marshals 
Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Protective Service, and 
Secret Service. They cut out every officer at the United States Capitol 
Police. They cut out the police who are standing outside these Chamber 
doors right now, keeping us safe. They cut out all the police who 
rushed to this building to keep all of my GOP friends safe on January 
6, 2021.

  Apparently, our Republican colleagues think National Police Week 
shouldn't include our national police.
  I wish I could say that this was an unsolved mystery, I really do, 
but the answer is obvious, Mr. Speaker. The new Republican position is 
that they only support some police.
  The new Republican position as of 2 weeks ago is that they want to 
defund police. They voted to cut COPS grants, fire 400 local police 
officers, defund the FBI, and cut grant funding for State and local law 
enforcement agencies.
  The new Republican position, as put forward by their frontrunner for 
President, is that we ought to pardon the convicted criminals, white 
supremacists, and neo-Nazis who beat cops, crushed them in doors, and 
hit them with fire extinguishers on January 6.
  The new Republican position is to give George Santos due process 
before he is kicked out but to deport legal immigrants who haven't even 
been charged with a crime.
  Here is what I see today, Mr. Speaker. It seems like Republicans back 
the blue until they realize that laws apply to them, too.
  That gets me to my final point because an important change is 
happening here today, and I want law enforcement officers across this 
country to take note. I know many of them are watching because it is 
police week, National Police Week, and here is what I want them to 
know: Democrats want to keep communities safe.
  Democrats want to address gun violence in our schools, an issue I 
hear from police officers about all the time.
  Democrats want to invest in programs that keep our communities safe, 
programs that get to the root causes of crime.
  Democrats want to make sure police aren't put in situations they 
aren't trained to handle.
  Democrats have passed bills that protect our communities and support 
our police, bills to help cops with PTSD and to invest in small police 
departments.
  Republicans want to wrap their arms around the police while they cut 
funding.
  Make sure we don't forget this, Mr. Speaker: 21 Republicans voted 
against awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to the Capitol Police--
21.
  Republicans changed their bill to deliberately exclude America's 
national police agencies from National Police Week, which dishonors and 
disrespects the Capitol Police officers who protect our Capitol 
Building.
  Republicans are using our law enforcement officers like political 
pawns. They are putting politics over public safety.
  It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican friends have lost their 
way on law enforcement today, and it is clear who is in charge. It is 
not Speaker McCarthy. It is the most extreme of the extreme, and once 
again, the American people lose.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues not to make 
excuses about this legislation, not to say that it doesn't have this, 
it has this, or you changed this because they are playing word games.
  The public is watching, and law enforcement officers are watching. 
Today, with your ``yes'' vote on this legislation, you can show your 
support for law enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Reschenthaler).
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and fellow 
Rules Committee member, Representative Fischbach, for the time.
  A quick history lesson.
  June 2020, Vice President Kamala Harris applauded former L.A. Mayor 
Eric Garcetti's decision to slash police funding by $150 million.
  Representative Ocasio-Cortez has stated, ``defunding police means 
defunding police,'' an exact quote.
  Representative Cori Bush has said that she would ``make sure'' she 
has private security for her protection while simultaneously promising 
to defund the police that protect you.

[[Page H2362]]

  Representative Tlaib has said: ``No more policing, incarceration, and 
militarization.''
  Representative Omar has stated: Not only do we need to defund, we 
need to dismantle police departments.
  What has been the result? What has been the result of these attacks 
on law enforcement? Well, 2021 was the deadliest year in two decades 
for our law enforcement officers.
  Mr. Speaker, 64 officers were shot and killed in the line of duty in 
2022. Just to put that in perspective, that is a 40 percent increase 
from 2020.
  At least nine cities, the vast majority of which are Democrat-
controlled cities, saw record homicides last year and skyrocketing 
crime that continues to plague our communities all across the country.
  Right here in D.C., for example, we are already seeing a 13 percent 
rise in violent crime in 2023 compared with 2022 when crime was already 
at near-historic levels.
  Democrats are now trying to deflect responsibility for this rise in 
crime, but it is their own far-left radical policies that are to blame.
  It is essential that we make it clear that Congress, at least this 
Republican majority, condemns all efforts to dismantle and defund our 
Nation's police officers.
  Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this 
rule and support the underlying piece of legislation.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota if she could 
respond to a question that we couldn't get an answer to in the Rules 
Committee last night as to why Republicans did not bring up their 
original bill, H. Con. Res. 5, the one that they made in order with 
their opening day rules package.
  I don't know whether she can explain it to me. I am happy to yield 
her some time to do that. The silence is deafening, Mr. Speaker, 
because the question that we asked in the Rules Committee last night 
that nobody could answer is, in their original bill we honored our 
entire Nation's law enforcement, including the Capitol Police, who 
protected us on January 6. However, the bill they bring up today 
changed all that and basically narrowed it down to local police but 
took out any recognition of our Capitol Police or any of our Federal 
law enforcement officers.
  The gentlewoman will not answer the question. Nobody in the Rules 
Committee would answer the question.
  To the gentleman from Pennsylvania who just spoke, who was talking 
about defunding the police, I will tell you, when I was the chairman of 
the Rules Committee, we didn't bring any resolutions to the floor to 
defund the police.
  Two weeks ago, my Republican friends voted to cut money for local law 
enforcement and for our Federal law enforcement agencies. They are the 
ones who voted to defund the police. Just don't believe me; you can 
Google it. Check it out. Two weeks ago, their bill that they brought to 
the floor will cut law enforcement agencies.
  Give me a break, Mr. Speaker.
  Again, the idea that my Republican friends made a conscious decision 
to remove the Capitol Police from a resolution honoring our Nation's 
police is beyond the pale.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a 
letter from the Department of Justice regarding the cuts proposed 
within the Republicans' debt limit bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

         U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative 
           Affairs, Office of the Assistant Attorney General,
                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Rosa DeLauro,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative DeLauro: This responds to your letter 
     to the Department of Justice (Department), dated January 19, 
     2023, regarding the impact on the Department's ability to 
     achieve its public safety mission if fiscal year (FY) 2024 
     discretionary spending is capped at the FY 2022 enacted 
     level. Funding the Department at FY 2022 enacted levels would 
     result in a significant reduction to the Department's budget 
     calculated to be much as 22% below FY 2023 enacted level and 
     more than $4 billion below what the Department would require 
     to sustain even its base functions (current services) in FY 
     2024. A 22% reduction in the Department's discretionary 
     funding would be a loss of more than $8 billion that is 
     needed for the Department to accomplish its public safety and 
     national security responsibilities.
       A funding reduction of 22% in a single year would result in 
     significant furloughs or reductions in force (RIFs) across 
     many components. In addition, components would need to cancel 
     dozens of contracts (including contracts for investigative 
     and litigation tools and technologies); freeze equipment 
     purchases (resulting in reliance on inferior and/or obsolete 
     equipment); eliminate operational training (which would 
     hinder operations and employee development); and reduce 
     operational travel (which could prolong investigations and 
     limit Department's efficacy). All this would result in a 
     delay of services and outcomes important to the nation and 
     the American justice system.
       The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) would see an 
     effective reduction of $2.8 billion were a funding reduction 
     of 22% imposed, which would negate nine years of growth in 
     the FBI's key programs. The effect on the FBI's personnel 
     would be the loss of roughly 11,000 positions, or 29.2% of 
     the FBI's workforce. The FBI would be required to undertake a 
     furlough of 60 days on a staggered basis. The lost work-years 
     due to a hiring freeze and furloughs are the equivalent of 
     the FBI shuttering 11 of its largest field offices (New York 
     City, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, San Francisco, 
     Newark, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Houston). The non-
     personnel costs alone, approximately $1.0 billion of the 
     reduction, would be the equivalent of eliminating all of the 
     FBI's Headquarters Divisions in the Criminal Branch, 
     Intelligence Branch, and National Security Branch combined.
       The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 
     (ATF) assesses that the 22% cut will result in a hiring 
     freeze that would mean 190 agents, 130 Industry Operations 
     Investigators, and 180 technical and support staff would be 
     lost to attrition. Further, ATF would have to take 36 
     furlough days for all of its over 5,000 employees, including 
     agents. Such a large reduction would: reduce operational 
     funding (mission-related activity, contracts, vehicle 
     maintenance), normal replacement cycle activity, provision of 
     Emergency Support Function #13 (assistance to local, state, 
     Tribal, territorial, and Federal organizations overwhelmed by 
     the results of an actual or anticipated natural/manmade 
     disaster or an act of terrorism), the K-9 program; eliminate 
     all state and local training at National Center for 
     Explosives Training and Research; start a backlog of 
     regulatory inspections that will take years to clear; and 
     increase trace times by more than two months at the National 
     Tracing Center due to reduced staff. Finally, a funding 
     reduction of 22% would severely hamper ATF's ability to fully 
     take advantage of the tools provided by the Bipartisan Safer 
     Communities Act (BSCA), in addition to substantially 
     diminishing the effectiveness of ATF's overall mission. The 
     consequential negative effect on public safety would be that 
     fewer ATF Special Agents would be available to assist law 
     enforcement in communities across the country. Without 
     appropriate funding, ATF would be unable to make critical 
     enhancements needed to improve public safety in the fight 
     against firearm related violent crime.
       The U.S. Marshals Service's (USMS) foremost mission is to 
     protect the federal Judicial process. Due to mandatory 
     requirements for judicial and courthouse security, witness 
     protection, and prisoner detention, a reduction of 22% below 
     the FY 2023 enacted level would cause delays in the judicial 
     system and disproportionately impact the fugitive 
     apprehension mission and the agency's ability to remove 
     violent offenders from the streets. With a 22% reduction, the 
     USMS would implement a hard hiring freeze, which would result 
     in the inability to replace an estimated 221 Deputy US 
     Marshals (DUSMs) and 135 other employees. The USMS would also 
     have to execute a furlough of 22 days for all employees, and 
     conduct a RIF for 650 employees, including an estimated 214 
     DUSMs. The USMS would eliminate all performance awards and 
     promotion opportunities and reduce funding to fugitive 
     surveillance, Special Operations, judicial security, and 
     body-worn camera programs. Finally, a 22% reduction would 
     create an insolvency in the Federal Prisoner Detention 
     appropriation of $467.7 million, an amount that the 
     Department could not legally resolve through transfers from 
     other accounts due to limitations imposed on 
     interappropriation transfers in each year's appropriations 
     act.
       On March 15, 2022, the Violence Against Women Act 
     Reauthorization Act of 2022 (VAWA 2022) was enacted. VAWA 
     2022 authorized multiple new programs for the Office on 
     Violence Against Women (OVW), three of which received their 
     first appropriations in the FY 2023 enacted budget: the LGBT 
     (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) Specific Services 
     Program; the Abby Honold Act (which fund trauma-informed, 
     victim-centered training for law enforcement); and the Tribal 
     Reimbursement Program for Special Tribal Criminal 
     Jurisdiction.
       Funding levels of 22% below the FY 2023 enacted level means 
     that programs newly established by VAWA 2022 would not be 
     funded at all or funded only through reductions to existing 
     programs. OVW also calculates that operating at the lower 
     level would mean approximately 40 fewer awards could be made

[[Page H2363]]

     to grantees in key programs like the STOP Violence Against 
     Women Formula Grant Program and the Sexual Assault Services 
     Formula Grant Program that provide key services to states and 
     to victims of sexual violence. For OVW generally, these cuts 
     would result in fewer victims served over subsequent years, 
     disproportionately heavy impacts on vulnerable communities, 
     and threats to the sustainability of crucial programming that 
     holds offenders accountable.
       The impacts on other Department grantmaking would be 
     detrimental as well. For example, if the Department's 
     Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office were to 
     operate at a 22% below the FY 2023 enacted level, the COPS 
     Hiring Program would be required to significantly reduce the 
     funding it provides both as to the number of positions it 
     supports and in the number of awards that it makes (reduction 
     of approximately $50 million). It would also decrease the 
     number of law enforcement positions funded by 300 to 400 
     positions and only be able to support approximately 1,060 law 
     enforcement positions. Finally, only about 200 awards would 
     be made to support law enforcement agencies, a reduction of 
     60 awards from FY 2023 enacted.
       Additionally, a 22% reduction could lead to significant 
     cuts to the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). Operating at a 
     level 22% below FY 2023 enacted levels would be a reduction 
     of almost $650 million to OJP's discretionary appropriations. 
     If OJP experienced a full 22% reduction, its mission to 
     improve the nation's capacity to prevent and reduce crime, 
     assist victims, and enhance the rule of law by strengthening 
     the criminal and juvenile justice systems would be 
     drastically reduced as further described below.
       Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) Formula awards to 
     local governments would be expected to drop by an average of 
     $30,000 from $98,000 to $68,000 and State awards could 
     decrease on average by $1.0 million per state from $3.4 
     million to $2.4 million. JAG is the leading source of Federal 
     justice funding to State and local jurisdictions. A 22% cut 
     in assistance would negatively impact a range of program 
     areas including law enforcement, prosecution, indigent 
     defense, courts, crime prevention and education, corrections 
     and community corrections, as well as drug treatment and 
     enforcement.
       Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Title 
     II Formula awards would be projected to be reduced by an 
     average of $294,000. This would drop the average award from 
     $843,000 to $549,000. Cuts from this formula program would 
     reduce critical support to States and localities in their 
     efforts to reform juvenile justice and strengthen prevention, 
     early intervention, and treatment programming for at-risk and 
     delinquent youth. Training and technical assistance that has 
     been shown to reduce racial and ethnic disparities among 
     youth in juvenile justice would be curtailed.
       DNA Analysis and Capacity Enhancement for Backlog Reduction 
     (CEBR) Program would see estimated reductions of $205,000 per 
     award, dropping the average award from $775,000 to $570,000. 
     These reductions would negatively impact the capacity of labs 
     across the Nation to process DNA samples that are used by law 
     enforcement to reduce violent crime, support prosecutors in 
     their efforts to meet their mission, and create safer 
     communities.
       Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Use Program 
     (COSSUP) would see a reduction of $40.7 million, which would 
     be the equivalent of cutting 25 awards (from 86 to 61). 
     COSSUP's purpose is to provide financial and technical 
     assistance to States, units of local government, and Indian 
     tribal governments to develop, implement, or expand 
     comprehensive efforts to identify, respond to, treat, and 
     support those impacted by illicit opioids, stimulants and 
     other drugs use.
       Drug Treatment Courts would see a reduction of $19.4 
     million, which would be the equivalent of cutting 27 awards 
     (from 63 to 36). These courts effectively integrate evidence-
     based substance use disorder treatment, random drug testing, 
     equitable sanctions and incentives, and recovery support 
     services in judicially supervised court settings to reduce 
     recidivism and substance use and misuse, as well as prevent 
     overdoses. These cuts in services to those with substance use 
     disorders would come in the midst of our nation's current 
     overdose crisis.
       Victims of Human Trafficking Programs would see a reduction 
     of $19.4 million, which would be the equivalent of cutting 26 
     awards (from 99 to 73). These programs are intended to 
     improve outcomes for victims of human trafficking. These 
     resources are a key source of funding for jurisdictions 
     working on coordinated, multidisciplinary, approaches to 
     serving trafficked victims.
       To reach an overall budget reduction of 22% from the FY 
     2023 enacted level, the U.S. Attorneys' Offices (USAOs) would 
     need to identify over $620 million in reductions in a single 
     year--nearly five times the cut from sequestration in FY 
     2013. Reductions of this magnitude will have a detrimental 
     and lasting impact on the USAOs' ability to carry out its 
     mission. In order to absorb this shortfall, the USAOs will 
     not only need to implement a complete hiring freeze and the 
     maximum 22-day furlough of the entire direct workforce of 
     approximately 10,000 employees, but also implement a RIF of 
     approximately 2,000 employees. The combined effect of the 
     hiring freeze and the RIF is a 28% reduction of the workforce 
     in a single year. In addition, non-personnel expenses would 
     be reduced by over 30%. These reductions would severely 
     impact the prosecutorial abilities of USAOs nationwide as 
     well as significantly jeopardize the totality of operations, 
     which is critical to maintaining the integrity of criminal 
     and civil casework.
       Imposing a 22% reduction would undermine efforts at Drug 
     Enforcement Administration (DEA), Organized Crime Drug 
     Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), the Criminal Division, and 
     the Civil Division to interdict illegal commerce in opioids 
     including fentanyl. The reduced funding level could amplify 
     the supply of illicit drugs and cause a proliferation in the 
     violence associated with the drug trade. The failure to fund 
     the investigation into this criminal activity would undermine 
     public safety throughout the country during the opioid public 
     health emergency. DEA would need to implement rolling 
     furloughs of all employees, including agents, for 78 days. A 
     cut of this magnitude would mean the DEA would absorb $620 
     million in reductions to base resources that would negatively 
     affect every aspect of the DEA's global operations and 
     efforts to reduce drug-poisoning deaths and drug-related 
     violence in the United States.
       Funding the Department at the FY2022 enacted level would 
     also severely undermine the Department's cybersecurity 
     efforts, both in seeking to interdict and prosecute 
     cybercriminals, and the Department's ability to protect its 
     own information systems and data from unauthorized intrusion. 
     Funding far below the current services level would negate 
     years of investments supported by Congress for cybercrime 
     investigative personnel, tools, and technology. Cybersecurity 
     threats, both domestic and international, evolve continuously 
     that include large-scale security breaches, supply chain 
     attacks, and the rampant spread of ransomware, which 
     underscore a transformational cyber moment. Cybercriminal 
     technologies will continue to advance at an accelerated and 
     unprecedented pace that's irrespective of funding reductions, 
     and the Department's efforts to ensure the safety and 
     security of the American public from such crimes would be 
     severely hindered.
       On August 10, 2022, the Honor Our Promise to Address 
     Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act of 2022 was enacted. Under 
     Section 804--the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA)--service 
     members and others who were exposed to water at Camp Lejeune 
     in North Carolina between 1953 and 1987 may file suit for 
     injuries caused by the exposure. Given the sheer volume of 
     cases, the complexity of this new litigation, and the fact 
     that the Department's existing appropriated funding in FY 
     2023 did not contemplate this change, the Department now 
     faces a significant challenge to ensure CLJA is implemented 
     as intended under current funding levels. The Department has 
     consistently explained that the currently allocated resources 
     in FY 2023 will not meet the Civil Division's need for 
     attorneys, support staff, and information technology 
     resources, which are essential to effectively respond to the 
     litigation demands that will result from the CLJA. If funding 
     were reduced by 22% compared to FY 2003, this shortfall would 
     increase significantly. A 22% reduction to the Civil Division 
     would result in a 30-day furlough to all employees and the 
     anticipated RIF of 221 employees which would eliminate 18% of 
     the current workforce.
       We are grateful to Congress for providing needed support in 
     the recently enacted FY 2023 omnibus to ensure Department 
     employees are able to uphold the rule of law, keep our 
     country safe, and protect civil rights for all. We have 
     listed only a few of the widespread effects of a 22% funding 
     reduction to the Department. We hope this information is 
     helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we 
     may be of further assistance with this or any other matter.
           Sincerely,
                                            Carlos Felipe Uriarte,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.

  Mr. McGOVERN. My Republican friends are actively cutting funding from 
Federal law enforcement that work to protect us every day. Their plan 
would also cut funding for nearly 400 local law enforcement positions. 
I mean, Republicans cannot be serious about supporting law enforcement 
when they are actively using their majority to defund them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I have to mention again, we have 
legislation in front of us that will honor our law enforcement 
officers. When we go off on tangents and talk about what words are 
there and what words are not there, the simple fact is, a ``yes'' vote 
on this legislation will show our support for law enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. 
Houchin).
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, this National Police Week is a special one 
for me as a new Member of Congress.
  I promise to always protect our police officers, just as they protect 
our communities back home. Regardless of which side of the aisle you 
are on, on that we should all agree.
  It is important that the American people see us supporting law 
enforcement as we debate a vote on this

[[Page H2364]]

week's police bills and throughout the 118th Congress.
  The legislation provided for in this rule are commonsense measures 
including: Allowing law enforcement officers to purchase retiring 
service weapons, making assaulting a law enforcement officer a 
deportable offense, and stating clearly that we appreciate the 
dedication of the men and women of law enforcement.
  There is no better message than showing our officers, ``We are behind 
you.'' I know law enforcement officers in southern Indiana and across 
the State who are listening right now and would appreciate it.
  I am in awe of the incredible work they do to keep us safe, as they 
agree to take the oath to protect and serve, knowing that does not 
guarantee them a safe return to their family at the end of the day. I 
saw the true weight of this when I visited the National Law Enforcement 
Officers Memorial last Thursday. The memorial displayed name after name 
after name of those who didn't return home. Too many names.
  One of those names of fallen officers was Officer Benton Bertram from 
Charlestown, Indiana. To see his name surrounded by so many selfless, 
brave heroes puts it in perspective. They didn't run from danger; they 
ran toward it.
  With unwavering gratitude, we won't forget their sacrifice. This is 
just the start of why it is so important we act this week on the House 
floor.
  As an Indiana State senator, I fought for and secured a pay raise for 
our State police officers. Many of them thanked me. I always responded; 
it was the least we could do for their service.
  Mr. Speaker, I will continue to take advantage of every opportunity 
to support the police and all law enforcement officers and will 
actively seek out opportunities to work with anyone willing to provide 
our officers with the resources and the support they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, my message to the police officers in southern Indiana 
is: Know you always have a fighter for you here on the House floor, in 
House committee rooms, and here in Congress. God bless our men and 
women in blue.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Indiana began her remarks by 
talking about National Police Week, but the resolution doesn't honor 
our national police. The Republicans made a conscious decision to 
remove the Capitol Police, FBI, ATF, CBP, U.S. Marshals Service, 
Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Federal Protective Service, and the 
Secret Service. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana to 
help me understand why the Republicans changed the wording of their 
resolution. I am happy to yield her any time.
  Mr. Speaker, again, the gentlewoman from Minnesota says we are 
playing word games. No, we are not. The only people playing word games 
are my Republican friends. They introduced a bill that honored all of 
our police, and then they changed it. They made a conscious decision to 
change it because I think they are afraid of the extreme of the extreme 
of their base that somehow don't want to admit that anything bad 
happened here on January 6, and they are afraid if they honor the 
Capitol Police that somehow their extreme base would be offended. That 
is just sick, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule for consideration of a resolution 
which states that it is the House's responsibility to protect and 
preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations and reject 
any cuts to these essential programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are vital to 
many of our constituents' economic health security, and yet many of my 
Republican friends across the aisle have called for major cuts to these 
critical programs. Once again, I am offering my friends the opportunity 
to reassure the American people, not just with rhetoric but with their 
votes, that they will not cut these vital programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Tlaib) to discuss our proposal.
  Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, our residents sent us to Congress to tackle 
the issues that are affecting every American's ability to thrive. They 
did not send us here to waste valuable time on messaging bills that are 
dead on arrival in the Senate and do nothing to improve the lives of 
working families.
  We are weeks, possibly days, away from Republicans hurtling our 
economy toward a devastating default on our debt for the first time in 
our Nation's history, and Republicans are heartlessly using the crisis 
as an opportunity to try to force cruel cuts to the social safety nets 
for our communities, especially our veterans, who depend on healthcare.

  Republicans are putting vital public programs like Social Security 
and Medicare at risk by playing petty political games to appease their 
billionaire donors and harm the lives and livelihoods of the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, defaulting on our debt would be devastating, if not 
catastrophic, for all those relying on Social Security and Medicare, as 
you know, in all of our districts. Social Security recipients would no 
longer receive checks, risking their ability to pay for groceries, 
rent, and utilities.
  This is exactly the type of chaos many of my Republican colleagues 
want to see happen, but Democrats are fully committed to protecting and 
expanding Social Security. Social Security is the bedrock of our social 
safety net and a pillar that all of our neighbors rely on, again, to be 
able to retire with dignity.
  Unfortunately, as the cost of things like healthcare, caregiving, and 
prescription drugs has skyrocketed due to the unchecked corporate greed 
in our country, our seniors have come to rely even more on Social 
Security every single day.
  Mr. Speaker, now more than ever before is the time to strengthen 
Social Security. If we defeat the previous question, we will bring to 
the House floor H. Res. 178, a resolution affirming the House's 
commitment to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare.
  Republicans need to stop wasting our time and playing games with the 
lives of our people. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question so we can advance this important legislation.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a much easier way for the other side to deal with 
the debt ceiling. Instead of the procedural antics we are going 
through, maybe what they should do is encourage the President and the 
Senate leaders to get to the table and negotiate.
  The House Republicans did their job. We passed a debt ceiling bill 
with spending cuts and an increase off of this floor. We have done our 
job. I think the real message here is National Police Week. That is 
what we are talking about. We are talking about the support and respect 
for our law enforcement officers.
  I just want to maybe bring it back to what we are really talking 
about. I, unfortunately, have had the unfortunate honor to have three 
officers lost in the line of duty in my area, and so I would remember 
those names: Officer Brian Klinefelter, Officer Tommy Decker, and 
Officer Josh Owen. Officer Owen was just a few weeks ago.
  Present in the Capitol yesterday was Officer Arik Matson, who was 
shot 3 years ago in the line of duty and survived. Let's talk about 
that. Let's talk about the officers that we are honoring.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Langworthy).
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule which 
provides consideration of important bills that support our Nation's law 
enforcement officers. This legislation comes at a critical moment when 
those on the front lines in our communities are being attacked, 
maligned, and stripped of the resources they need to keep us safe.
  Mr. Speaker, time and again my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle claim that the phrase ``defund the police'' is a slogan of a very 
small and

[[Page H2365]]

rogue minority that doesn't reflect their party's broader values. 
Democrats said that even as cities across this country burned in the 
summer of 2020, to the deafening chant of ``defund the police.''
  Let's take a look at the facts. Since 2021, 25 cities across America 
defunded their police departments by upwards of $2 billion. Police 
department budgets were slashed in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago, 
San Francisco, Austin, and even in my home State of New York, New York 
City.
  What do all these cities have in common? They have Democrat mayors, 
Democrat city councils, Democrat monopolies on all of the levers of 
power.
  New York City is seeing felony crime skyrocket to levels not seen in 
15 years after its Democrat mayor and Democrat-dominated city council 
embraced the destructive ideals of the defund the police movement. Last 
year, the city saw a 22.4 percent jump in serious offenses like felony 
assault, rape, burglary, robberies, and grand larceny.
  Let's call it what it is. Defunding the police is not a fringe idea. 
It is a movement at the heart of the Democratic Party, and it is in 
practice right now. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
truly believe that it is a fringe idea, then I look forward to strong 
bipartisan support for this important pro-law enforcement legislation 
this week.
  Let's show our men and women in blue, the ones on the front lines of 
our community, of every community, that they aren't alone, and we have 
their backs.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Let me just say to the gentleman, again, the only people who in this 
Chamber voted to defund the police are my Republican friends. Two weeks 
ago, you all voted for a bill to cut money for local law enforcement, 
every one of you.
  Let's talk about the police that you are not honoring here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a CNN 
story about two FBI agents who were shot and killed last week, and yet 
they have been taken off the list of law enforcement officials that we 
are honoring.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                        [From CNN, Feb. 8, 2021]

Two FBI Agents Were Shot and Killed Last Week. Here's Why That's a Rare 
                                Tragedy

                             (By Phil Gast)

       The killing of two FBI agents last week at a lake-bordered 
     community in South Florida marked the first time since 
     November 2008 that an FBI agent was fatally shot in the line 
     of duty. During that same interval, 630 police officers from 
     state, local, tribal and other federal agencies died from 
     line-of-duty gunshot wounds, according to the National Law 
     Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund
       Why do most shooting deaths of law enforcement officers in 
     the US occur outside of the FBI, which calls itself ``one of 
     the world's premier security and crime-fighting forces''? 
     Some of the answers are expected: Nearly 90% of the nation's 
     law enforcement officers serve on local and state police 
     forces. They make more arrests. They are much more likely to 
     encounter potentially violent suspects on a daily basis--
     whether it be for a traffic stop, domestic violence call or 
     another emergency.
       But there are other factors that might explain why fewer 
     agents die by gunfire, say law enforcement experts and former 
     agents.
       FBI agents are more likely to build cases incrementally 
     than respond to a 911 call. They often work in multi-agency 
     task forces and generally have more time to plan search 
     warrants and safe execution of them. They build a case 
     against an individual and weigh the danger he or she might 
     present. All of this reduces the likelihood they will draw a 
     gun or have one pulled on them. Still, the work is dangerous 
     and plans can end in tragedy, as occurred Tuesday when 
     Special Agents Daniel Alfin and Laura Schwartzenberger and 
     other agents and local police officers tried to execute a 
     search warrant at a Sunrise, Florida, apartment where the 
     suspect was barricaded. He, too, died, although the 
     circumstances have not been divulged.
       The Florida case, according to authorities, involved 
     alleged violent crimes against children--society's most 
     vulnerable. Federal convictions for such crimes can lead to 
     lengthy prison sentences and some suspects may feel they may 
     have a lot to lose, experts say.
       ``These can be people who think of themselves having big 
     complicated, important lives and they may have a fraudulent 
     exterior,'' says Andrew McCabe, former deputy director of the 
     FBI and a current CNN senior law enforcement analyst.


              Taking a strategic versus tactical approach

       While all law enforcement work is inherently dangerous, 
     there are differences in the scenarios FBI agents and local 
     officers typically face.
       The latter's ``jobs are more tactical. They often don't 
     have a plan when they get on their shift, and do not know 
     what will be their next call,'' says James Pasco, executive 
     director of the National Fraternal Order of Police. ``The 
     circumstances are often more volatile, and he or she can't 
     control circumstances.'' They often have to be in a reactive 
     mode.
       Federal agents, on the other hand, are often involved in 
     complex cases, including cyberterrorism, domestic terrorism, 
     online fraud and crimes against children, such as pornography 
     and trafficking.
       They are proactive as they gather evidence, following leads 
     and tips and reaching out to other law enforcement agencies.
       Local police departments have investigators, too, but the 
     FBI's hallmark is deep investigations into individuals that 
     can be anywhere--from down the street to a remote hideaway 
     overseas.
       ``You have the ability to do your homework in advance of an 
     operation,'' says Lazaro ``Larry'' Cosme, national president 
     of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. ``It 
     doesn't mean it will be a foolproof operation.''
       FBI agents, when they do move in on a suspect, have a 
     precise plan and contingencies, experts say. And they usually 
     get to decide the time and place of the search or arrest. 
     Often, they move in with an overwhelming force.
       ``They typically control the environment wherever they 
     go,'' says Josh Campbell, CNN security correspondent and a 
     former FBI agent. ``It is rare for officers to fire their 
     weapons and receive gunfire.''
       But sometimes an operation encounters the unknown. There 
     never will be a ``complete understanding of every threat,'' 
     McCabe says.


            Agents try to reduce risk of armed confrontation

       Special agents Alfin, 36, and Schwartzenberger, 43, are 
     being remembered for their efforts to fight sex crimes 
     against children. They worked at the FBI's Miami office in a 
     unit that investigates online predators, child pornography, 
     sexual abuse, kidnappings and violent attacks. An hour before 
     dawn Tuesday, they and other officers went to an upscale 
     apartment in Sunrise to serve a search warrant.
       Such an operation typically involves local police blocking 
     streets and adding legitimacy, says Campbell.
       Going that early has its advantages for law enforcement: 
     They generally have the element of surprise. The subject may 
     be groggy. He or she may have had little time to formulate 
     resistance. The aim is to defuse the situation.
       ``Generally speaking, that will result in a lower number of 
     violent confrontations,'' says Pasco.
       The FBI hasn't said much about the search warrant, other 
     than it was ordered by a federal court relating to a case of 
     violent crimes against children. The FBI Agents Association 
     said it was related to suspected possession of child 
     pornography.
       It's not known whether the FBI knew the suspect in Sunrise 
     had weapons. Details about what led to the gunfire, weren't 
     available. The FBI has not released an account of what 
     occurred during the shootout.
       The gunman opened fire and Alfin and Schwartzenberger were 
     killed; three agents were wounded. Two were taken to a 
     hospital with multiple gunshot wounds and later released. The 
     third agent was treated at the scene.
       Usually, experts and the FBI says, the serving of warrants 
     ends without incident. ``We do a ton of these warrants in 
     these kinds of cases all around the country, every day,'' 
     McCabe said.
       But with the profusion of child pornography, ``We are 
     getting more people who are reacting violently or 
     unpredictably to a search warrant,'' he says.


             1986 firefight led to more firepower, training

       The Sunrise shooting is similar to a deadly firefight 35 
     years ago outside Miami that was a turning point in the FBI's 
     history. On April 11, 1986, two violent bank robbers being 
     pursued by FBI agents opened fire with high-powered firearms, 
     killing two agents and wounding five others before the 
     suspects were killed.
       The names and photographs of Special Agents Jerry Dove and 
     Benjamin P. Grogan are on the FBI's online Wall of Honor. The 
     page lists 81 employees going back to 1925. Some were killed 
     in the 1930s during the gangster age.
       The last agent to be shot to death before Alfin and 
     Schwartzenberger was Special Agent Samuel S. Hicks, who was 
     killed in 2008 while trying to serve an arrest warrant in a 
     drug trafficking case at a home near Pittsburgh.
       Most of those listed toward the end of the Wall of Honor 
     died as a result of illnesses linked to responding to the 9/
     11 attacks.
       Law enforcement officers block off an area near where the 
     agent deaths occurred in Sunrise, Florida.
       In the aftermath of the 1986 shootout, the FBI issued 
     special agents with semiautomatic handguns rather than 
     revolvers,

[[Page H2366]]

     changed its firearms training and studied the psychological 
     impacts of being shot at, former FBI deputy director John S. 
     Pistole said in 2006.
       All of this was aimed at protecting the health and lives of 
     agents.
       2020 was one of the deadliest years in history for US law 
     enforcement officers, according to a group that tracks 
     officer deaths in the line of duty.
       Law enforcement officers died last year of numerous causes, 
     among them vehicle crashes, heart attacks and gunshots. But 
     more died of Covid-19 than all other causes combined, with 
     145 out of the 264 deaths attributed to the virus, according 
     to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.


             `Our chosen profession is fraught with danger'

       The FBI is conducting an investigation into what happened 
     in Florida. ``You owe it to the patriots who gave their 
     lives'' to see whether there are lessons to be learned or 
     ways for agents to better protect themselves, says McCabe.
       The loss of two dedicated agents has been a gut punch to 
     the bureau. Law enforcement and others are in mourning.
       ``Our chosen profession is fraught with danger. Today, this 
     grim reality has taken two of our best from our family,'' 
     George Piro, special agent in charge of the FBI's Miami Field 
     Office, said at a news conference hours after the shooting.
       William Beller, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
     Association chapter president, told CNN on Wednesday: ``We 
     are all brothers and sisters in law enforcement.'' Overcome 
     with emotion, he said, ``All I know is I was able to hug my 
     kids today,'' and walked away in tears.
       Services for the fallen agents took place over the weekend 
     at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami Gardens.
       It's important for people to know that while being an FBI 
     agent is exciting, it's an incredibly hard and perilous job, 
     McCabe says.
       ``Moments like this bring reality to them in a very 
     visceral way,'' he says. ``It will not deter them. They will 
     not turn their guns in tomorrow.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the 
Record the names of the law enforcement officers who died as a result 
of the Capitol riots: U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, U.S. 
Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood, D.C. Police Officer Jeffrey 
Smith, D.C. Police Officer Gunther Hashida, D.C. Police Officer Kyle 
DeFreytag.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

             How Many Died as a Result of the Capitol Riot

       U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick
       U.S. Capitol Police Officer Howard Liebengood
       D.C. Police Officer Jeffrey Smith
       D.C. Police Officer Gunther Hashida
       D.C. Police Officer Kyle DeFreytag

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to also include in 
the Record a CNN story about the 21 Republicans who voted ``no'' on a 
bill to award Congressional Gold Medals for the January 6 police 
officers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                       [From CNN, June, 16, 2021]

       Republicans Vote No on Bill To Award Congressional Gold 
     Medal for January 6 Police Officers

                  (By Annie Grayer and Kristin Wilson)

       Despite the House and Senate coming to an agreement that 
     will award the Congressional Gold Medal to the officers who 
     defended the Capitol, 21 House Republicans voted against the 
     legislation Tuesday, the latest reminder that members of 
     Congress still cannot agree on the facts of the deadly 
     January 6 riot.
       The final vote in the House on Tuesday was 406-21. The 
     number of House Republicans voting against the bill nearly 
     doubled since the first time a version of the bill came to 
     the House floor, as the vote when the bill first passed the 
     House in March was 413-12. Republican Rep. Lance Gooden of 
     Texas was the only GOP member to vote no in March and change 
     his vote to yes this time around.
       Both the House and the Senate had passed their own 
     resolutions to bestow the medals, but the initial pieces of 
     legislation varied. The revised bills will now award three 
     medals--one to the entire US Capitol Police force, and one to 
     the Metropolitan Police Department, ``so that the sacrifices 
     of fallen officers and their families, and the contributions 
     of other law enforcement agencies who answered the call of 
     duty on January 6, 2021, can be recognized and honored in a 
     timely manner.''
       A third will be put on display at the Smithsonian 
     Institution, with a plaque that lists all the law enforcement 
     agencies that protected and defended the Capitol.
       Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia told 
     reporters that she voted against the Congressional Gold Medal 
     to US Capitol Police Officers and MPD because she does not 
     believe the legislation should refer to January 6 as an 
     insurrection.
       ``I wouldn't call it an insurrection,'' Greene told 
     reporters.
       Greene also said she had issue with the language of the 
     bill that referred to the Capitol complex as ``the temple of 
     our American Democracy.''
       ``This is not a temple. That is for sure,'' Greene said.
       Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky also said his 
     vote against the legislation was because of the language of 
     the bill, specifically the references to the Capitol as a 
     temple and January 6 as an insurrection.
       ``There are pending cases or trials right now, indictments 
     against people, and I think if we called it an insurrection, 
     it could have a bearing on their case,'' he said. ``If they 
     just wanted to give the police recognition, they could have 
     done it without trying to make it partisan,'' he said.
       When asked if he thought what happened on January 6 was an 
     insurrection, he answered, ``I think it was a mob but I don't 
     think it was an insurrection, no.''
       Pressed again, he said, ``They were protesting and I don't 
     approve of the way they protested, but it wasn't an 
     insurrection. My goodness. Can you imagine what a real 
     insurrection would look like?''
       Other members such as Rep. Andrew Clyde and Rep. Andy Biggs 
     ignored questions from CNN asking to explain their vote.
       Rep. Warren Davidson, an Ohio Republican, explained in a 
     tweet that the reason he voted against the bill but 
     previously voted for an earlier version of the legislation 
     was because the final version of the bill referenced fallen 
     Capitol Police Officer William ``Billy'' Evans who was killed 
     as the result of an attack on the Capitol on April 2.
       `` `Yes' was the easy vote, but it's wrong to conflate 4/2 
     with 1/6. My ``no'' vote is an effort to make that clear'' 
     Davidson tweeted.
       ``I have already voted to award the Congressional Gold 
     Medal to DC Metro and Capitol Police for their bravery on 1/
     6. Today's vote was an attempt to rewrite history and further 
     a Democrat narrative'' Davidson added.
       Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who has been an outspoken 
     critic of former President Donald Trump and his supporters 
     that remain in the House, publicly criticized his 21 
     colleagues who voted against the legislation.
       ``How you can vote no to this is beyond me,'' Kinzinger 
     tweeted after the vote. ``Then again, denying an insurrection 
     is as well. To the brave Capitol (and DC metro PD) thank you. 
     To the 21: they will continue to defend your right to vote no 
     anyway.''
       Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, a frequent Trump 
     critic herself, specifically criticized Rep. Paul Gosar, who, 
     in addition to voting no on the legislation, had referred to 
     the shooting of Capitol rioter Ashli Babbitt as an execution 
     earlier Tuesday.
       ``On January 6, as the violent mob advanced on the House 
     chamber, I was standing near @RepGosar and helped him open 
     his gas mask. The Capitol Police led us to safety. It is 
     disgusting and despicable to see Gosar lie about that day and 
     smear the men and women who defended us,'' tweeted Cheney, 
     who was ousted from GOP leadership last month after she 
     repeatedly rejected Trump's election lies.
       In February, the Senate unanimously voted to award a 
     Congressional Gold Medal to Officer Eugene Goodman, who 
     singlehandedly led a mob of insurrectionists away from the 
     Senate chamber minutes before the chamber doors were sealed 
     with senators still inside. But the House version of the 
     legislation opted to award the medal to the whole of the 
     police force rather than singling out one individual for the 
     medal.
       The legislation does name several individual officers, 
     including Goodman, for their valor, saying ``Capitol Police 
     Officers Brian Sicknick and Howard Liebengood, Metropolitan 
     Police Department Officer Jeffrey Smith, and those who 
     sustained injuries, and the courage of Capitol Police Officer 
     Eugene Goodman, exemplify the patriotism and the commitment 
     of Capitol Police officers, and those of other law 
     enforcement agencies, to risk their lives in service of our 
     country.''
       The 21 Republicans who voted against the bill are:
       1. Lauren Boebert of Colorado
       2. John Rose of Tennessee
       3. Andy Harris of Maryland
       4. Thomas Massie of Kentucky
       5. Bob Good of Virginia
       6. Louie Gohmert of Texas
       7. Barry Moore of Alabama
       8. Ralph Norman of South Carolina
       9. Matt Rosendale of Montana
       10. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia
       11. Chip Roy of Texas
       12. Paul Gosar of Arizona
       13. Andy Biggs of Arizona
       14. Warren Davidson of Ohio
       15. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania
       16. Matt Gaetz of Florida
       17. Greg Steube of Florida
       18. Andrew Clyde of Georgia
       19. Jody Hice of Georgia
       20. Mary Miller of Illinois
       21. Michael Cloud of Texas

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, again, I am happy to yield to the 
gentleman from New York whatever time he needs, but I guess he left the 
floor. I would like somebody to explain to me why Republicans decided 
to change the wording of the bill that they introduced at the opening 
day session of Congress to exclude all of our Federal

[[Page H2367]]

police officers and exclude our Capitol Police.
  I don't quite understand why they did that except I think they are 
afraid of their base, the extreme element of their base who basically 
do not want to honor them. I find that really disturbing.
  Again, talking about defunding the police, the only people in this 
Chamber who voted to cut money for the police are on the other side of 
the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to speak to you today in 
honor of our police force. What better time to honor the brave men and 
women of law enforcement. They don't do it for the money. They do it 
because of service.
  What you are hearing from the other side is just not true. They are 
the party of defunding the police. Their own Vice President put up bond 
money for rioters. I can name you--and I am not going to name them by 
name--you have got one, two, three--five sitting Congress people whose 
statements are ``defunding police means defunding police,'' ``efforts 
to defund the police department,'' ``no more police.'' They are the 
party of defunding the police.
  What better time to celebrate the fact that men and women are willing 
to do this? They see things we don't see. They go places we don't go. 
To have 135 officers shot in 2023 is unacceptable. Fifteen officers 
have been killed by gunfire, and 43 officers were shot in ambush-style 
attacks. The amount of officers shot in the line of duty is up 52 
percent from this time in 2020.
  Words are cheap, but it is what we as a party are doing to support 
the police. The statistics are outrageous. I look forward to 
considering legislation that supports our police officers and condemns 
the leftists' efforts to dismantle local law enforcement agencies, 
which they do.
  To all those in law enforcement, Mr. Speaker, I thank them. For those 
who are willing to go through good times and bad times to protect us, I 
thank them. God bless every police officer in this country.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman who just spoke neglected to say is he 
only wants to honor some of our police officers. They made a conscious 
decision to, quite frankly, remove our national police, our Capitol 
Police, from the resolution that they were originally included in.
  He said don't believe us. Well, the words are here. This is their 
original bill: ``H. Con. Res. 5, Expressing support for the Nation's 
law enforcement agencies and condemning any efforts to defund or 
dismantle law enforcement agencies.'' Their new bill was changed to 
just say ``local law enforcement.''
  They made a conscious decision to do that. The gentleman keeps on 
quoting, and there is an old saying that the only thing that really 
matters around here is votes. Everything else is B.S. We can play this 
game of quotes versus votes, but the bottom line is the votes are what 
matter and what matters the most.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle 2 weeks ago brought a bill 
that they all voted for that cut money for law enforcement at every 
level. They voted for that. That is their record. I hope my friends 
will appreciate that.
  As we honor our Nation's police officers, as we should, I have to say 
it is disappointing that we are only honoring some, that a conscious, 
deliberate decision was made to exclude others. I find that really, 
really disturbing, and, quite frankly, we tried to fix it last night in 
the Rules Committee. We tried to fix it in the Judiciary Committee, and 
all the Republicans voted it down.
  I urge people to look at the votes. The votes are what matters.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, ``It wasn't an accident. Policing in our 
country is inherently and intentionally racist. Daunte Wright was met 
with aggression and violence. I am done with those who condone 
government-funded murder. No more policing, incarceration, and 
militarization. It can't be reformed.'' Thus said Congresswoman Tlaib 
who was just down here talking about this.
  Congresswoman Omar: ``You can't really reform a department that is 
rotten to the root.''
  That is the truth of what my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle think about law enforcement. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
down here besmirching the 21 Members of our body who said no to the 
politicization of the Capitol Police.
  You want to know why it is not in here? It is because my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle want to turn the Capitol Police into 
political pawns. That is the truth.
  We had a resolution in the last Congress, H.R. 1085--I voted for it--
giving a Congressional Gold Medal to the brave men and women of the 
Capitol Police who stood here on January 6.
  Then my colleagues on the other side of the aisle didn't want to 
leave it there. They then added another resolution a mere 2 months 
later when they wanted to play politics. They are playing political 
games.
  Instead of honoring our men and women of law enforcement, Democrats 
played political games on a different tragedy, April 2, 2021, when 
Officer Billy Evans was killed and Officer Kenneth Shaver was injured 
by a man obsessed with the Nation of Islam who slammed his vehicle into 
the north barricade of the U.S. Capitol complex. That didn't fit the 
narrative. That didn't fit the narrative of my Democratic colleagues, 
seeing they want to be able to come down here and make claims that they 
are not defunding the police, that we are. Because we dare to stand up 
and say we should have fiscal responsibility and set a top-line cap, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to besmirch Republicans 
for cutting all manners of programs.
  Yet, they bring no solutions to the American people about ending the 
$32 trillion in debt, destroying the dollar, causing inflation, 
undermining jobs, and destroying our country. They know exactly what 
they are doing, and they are doing it on purpose.
  We are going to stand with the men and women in blue across this 
country. That is what this resolution is about. It is about standing 
with them, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent every 
waking moment undermining them, saying we should defund them when there 
were riots on the streets and our cities were burning to the ground. My 
Democratic colleagues didn't care. They allowed it to happen. They knew 
exactly what they were doing. That is what this is about.

  I would add this: My father carries a card around with him. He is 80 
years old. That card was given to him by his father, a chief of police 
of a small west Texas town. It is called: ``Jackie: `The Son of a Hard 
Boiled Cop.'''

     You think I'm a hard-boiled copper
     For writing a mere ``forty-three'';
     Well perhaps I'm thinking of Jackie
     And all the lad meant to me.
     How's that? Tell you all about it?
     Well, stranger, the boy was my son.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, and I continue:

     God! What I'd give to hear, ``Daddy,''
     Once more when the day's work is done.
     The driver was just in a hurry,
     He didn't intend any harm,
     But the Sun and stars quit shining,
     When I picked up my boy's lifeless form.
     Well, mister, I'll tear up this ticket;
     I don't want to ``pinch'' anyone;
     But I'd ride this motor through hell-fires
     To protect another man's son.
     So the next time you feel like speeding
     Or passing a boulevard stop,
     Just pause and remember my Jackie--
     The son of a hard-boiled cop.

  My dad carries that with him to this day, and he is 80 years old. If 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to play politics with 
cops, they can do it on somebody else's dime.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman runs out, I will just say 
you can yell all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that my 
friends on the other side of the aisle, including the gentleman, voted 
to cut money for local law enforcement
  Mr. Speaker, what they did is they voted to cut a million dollars per 
State

[[Page H2368]]

in Federal money for our local law enforcement. They would fire, lay 
off, 400 local police officers. That is what would happen if their bill 
that they voted on 2 weeks ago became law. It could cut COPS grants. It 
would cut other DOJ funding for our local police.
  The gentleman who just had a meltdown on the floor, screaming and 
yelling, comes on the floor all the time to talk about our border. I 
mean, my Republican friends made a conscious decision to remove Customs 
and Border Protection from the bill honoring our law enforcement.
  I would like somebody to answer why. They removed the Capitol Police. 
They removed the FBI. They also removed CBP.
  Mr. Speaker, their bill, according to the Department of Justice, if 
it became a law, the reduction in support for our police and Federal 
law enforcement would result in a reduction in our operations 
equivalent to the following: 154,000 pounds of cocaine not seized, 859 
pounds of fentanyl and 1,948 pounds of heroin not seized, 17,148 pounds 
of methamphetamine not seized, $9 million in currency not seized, 561 
criminals not arrested, 57,594 apprehensions not made, and 361 people 
not rescued. The gentleman says he is being fiscally responsible, and 
that is why they voted for these cuts? Enough.

  Again, can somebody please explain to me from the party that voted to 
defund the police why the omission, why were the words of the 
Republican bill changed to omit all of these other brave men and women 
who are protecting people all across this country and the Capitol 
Police who protect us every single day?
  By the way, the gentleman who just spoke was among those who voted 
not to give a Congressional Gold Medal to the Capitol Police. Thank 
goodness 400 Members, Democrats and Republicans, disagreed with him.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Rutherford).
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, as we move into National Police Week, I rise in support 
of two bills that will help make our officers safer out on the street. 
The first is H.R. 2494, commonly called the POLICE Act, which simply 
states that an illegal alien that assaults a police officer will be 
deported. Not might be; will be.
  Currently, the situation is they can be arrested for assaulting, and 
in 2021 we had 43,000 law enforcement officers assaulted. I am sure 
many of those were by illegal aliens. Those numbers are just going to 
go up. They can be arrested, placed in a 287(g) jail facility where 
they are held for ICE, convicted of the crime of assault, but they 
still may not be deported. They have to go through a long legal 
analysis after their conviction to ensure that they are deported out of 
this country.

  H.R. 2494, the POLICE Act, simply says if you assault one of our 
officers, we are kicking you out of this country. I can't imagine why 
anyone across the aisle would vote against that.
  The other bill is H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Service 
Weapon Purchase Act. Mr. Speaker, we have several of our Federal law 
enforcement agencies right now who are about to go through rearming 
their agencies to the tune of about 20,000 weapons. They are going to 
destroy these weapons if officers are not allowed to purchase their 
service weapon as it is being retired or as the officer may retire.
  This bill simply says that we are going to take these officers that 
are retiring, and if they want to purchase their service weapon, they 
will be allowed to. Currently, they are precluded from doing that. All 
of these weapons are going to be destroyed; about $8 million worth. We 
are just going to destroy them, and the taxpayers are going to have to 
buy more.
  As a 40-year law enforcement officer, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, 
your sidearm is not just any old sidearm. There is a special 
relationship that you develop, and we need to allow these officers to 
purchase their firearms.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the 
Record an article from MSNBC titled: ``The list of Republicans open to 
`defunding' the FBI keeps growing.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                       [From MSNBC, Mar. 6, 2023]

   The List of Republicans Open to `Defunding' the FBI Keeps Growing

                            (By Steve Benen)

       Even before the FBI executed a search warrant at Mar-a-
     Lago, the public would occasionally hear some Republican 
     officials talk about cutting off funds to federal law 
     enforcement. At an event last year, for example, Republican 
     Rep. Andy Biggs, the former chair of the right-wing House 
     Freedom Caucus, talked up possible priorities if the GOP took 
     control of the House.
       ``There are things you can do,'' the Arizonan said, 
     reflecting on Congress' power. ``You start defunding some of 
     these bad agencies. The FBI. The DOJ.''
       After the search at Donald Trump's glorified country club, 
     however, similar talk became much louder. Republican Rep. 
     Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, for example, became a 
     leading proponent of ``defunding'' the FBI.
       On Friday, Rep. Matt Gaetz capped off a difficult week with 
     an appearance at the Conservative Political Action 
     Conference, where attendees heard the Florida Republican join 
     the defunding brigade. USA Today reported:
       ``I don't care if it takes every second of our time and 
     every ounce of our energy,'' he said. ``We either get this 
     government back on our side or we defund and get rid of, 
     abolish the FBI, the CDC, ATF, DOJ, every last one of them if 
     they do not come to heel.'' The CDC is the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention. The audience, made up of far-
     right activists, loudly applauded Gaetz's condemnation, 
     nearly drowning him out.
       He did not elaborate on how, exactly, federal agencies 
     should ``come to heel,'' or to whose heel officials should 
     come, but the GOP congressman is apparently ready to 
     ``defund,'' ``get rid of'' or ``abolish'' the departments 
     anyway.
       In the not-too-distant past, Republicans were hysterical 
     about the idea that Democrats might try to ``defund the 
     police.'' It's against that backdrop that a growing number of 
     GOP voices feel quite comfortable talking about defunding the 
     FBI.
       It's worth noting for context that Republican leaders 
     recently appointed Gaetz to the party's ``weaponization'' 
     panel, putting him in a position to help target federal 
     agencies and determine whether or not they're on the GOP's 
     ``side.''
       Rep. Jim Jordan didn't go quite that far during a Sunday 
     appearance on Fox News, but the Ohio Republican--who chairs 
     both the House Judiciary Committee and the select 
     ``weaponization'' panel--did say GOP lawmakers intend to use 
     the ``weaponization'' panel to investigate assorted partisan 
     conspiracy theories related to the FBI.
       I continue to believe there's a degree of irony to these 
     circumstances: As we've discussed, the FBI has earned a 
     reputation as one of the single most conservative 
     institutions in the federal government.
       Indeed, it was just last week when The Washington Post 
     published a fascinating behind-the-scenes report on the 
     disagreements within federal law enforcement ahead of the 
     search at Mar-a-Lago, including details about how FBI 
     officials wanted to give Trump special treatment, and even 
     pushed the idea that the bureau should get the former 
     president's permission before executing a court-approved 
     search warrant.
       The Post's article added that some FBI field agents tried 
     to ``slow'' the investigation, with some calling for the 
     investigation to simply end altogether in early June, taking 
     Team Trump's lies about cooperation at face value.
       Gaetz is desperate to get ``this government'' back on 
     conservatives' ``side.'' Isn't much of the FBI already there?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I am concerned because, on the one 
hand, my Republican colleagues say they support the police. On the 
other hand, their own Members are calling on Congress to defund Federal 
law enforcement.
  They want to defund the FBI. They want to defund ATF. They want to 
defund DOJ.
  I guess it just shows that Republicans support only some of the 
police. In fact, there is a Member on the other side of the aisle who 
is selling ``Defund the FBI'' T-shirts on her web page.
  Mr. Speaker, I have asked over and over and over again why the 
Republican bill was changed to exclude a whole bunch of law enforcement 
officers on the Federal level, including the Capitol Police. As those 
who are watching this debate saw, every time I wanted to yield to get 
an answer, there was silence.
  Nobody can explain why this happened. Nobody will help us solve this 
mystery as to why they decided not to honor a whole bunch of our brave 
men

[[Page H2369]]

and women who protect us in so many ways all across this country. It is 
baffling to me that this is where we are.
  I began by telling a story, and let me end with telling a story.
  Mr. Speaker, I was here on January 6. I was in the Speaker's chair on 
January 6. I was the last person off the House floor. I saw everybody 
who was here in this Chamber, including some of my colleagues on the 
Republican side, cowering behind Capitol Police officers because they 
were afraid for their lives. It was a terrible, terrible day.
  Luckily, nobody here was injured, none of us, none of the Members of 
Congress or our staff. The Capitol Police protected us that day. I 
mean, we owe them our lives.
  Today, as we honor our national police, my Republican friends thought 
it was appropriate to remove them from the list of people being 
honored. I find that disgraceful.
  I can't even imagine what the thinking was to make that kind of 
decision. It is so insulting and so offensive to the people who 
protected us that day and protect us each and every day. I don't 
understand that.
  I can't get a response, but we know what is going on here. We know 
that they removed the Capitol Police and that they removed some of 
these Federal law enforcement agencies because they were afraid they 
were going to lose votes on their side, that some of their Members 
would not vote to honor all of our law enforcement officials. Let that 
sink in for a minute.
  This should have been a day of unity. This should have been a truly 
bipartisan endeavor to get us legislation to the floor that everybody 
could support, that we could all say thank you to our police. But, no, 
it is politicized.
  They get up here and start quoting people on defund the police, but 
they don't tell anybody that they voted to defund the police 2 weeks 
ago. It is public record. Every one of them did, including the 
gentleman who was down here screaming.
  He gets on the floor all the time and talks about the need that we 
have to better protect our border, yet the people who are charged with 
protecting our border were removed from the list of people we were 
honoring.
  This is not right by any measure. It is not right. I am so 
disappointed that my Republican friends have decided to politicize 
this.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so we can protect Social Security and Medicare, and I urge 
them to vote ``no'' on this rule.
  This is beneath this institution. This is not honoring our police. 
This is politicizing our police. This is saying to some of our police 
that we don't value their service. It is saying to the Capitol Police 
that we don't value their service.
  How dare anybody on the other side suggest that? How dare you bring a 
bill to the floor that does just that? This is sickening.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I am honored to be here today to support this rule and this 
legislation to make sure we honor our law enforcement and that we are 
moving forward.
  This is a completely different agenda from the legislation that my 
Democratic colleagues were advancing at this time in the 117th Congress 
last year. By this time 2 years ago, Democrats had already passed 
legislation that would have removed qualified immunity for police 
officers acting in good faith, voted to restrict policing methods that 
keep officers safe, and supported investigations into departments that 
insinuated that police officers are racists and white supremacists.
  Today, House Republicans are changing the narrative and standing up 
for law and order and for those who enforce it. If my Democratic 
colleagues don't think this matters, then they clearly are still not 
listening to what the law enforcement community needs.
  Today, they have the opportunity to show their support for law 
enforcement.
  The defund the police movement has been disastrous in the areas that 
have tried it, emboldening criminals. Cities like Minneapolis and San 
Francisco have seen dramatic increases in crime, and residents and 
businesses alike are fleeing in droves.
  Crime is skyrocketing throughout the country, and the lack of respect 
for law enforcement in this country also means fewer people are willing 
to enter the profession. This needs to change, and we in Congress can 
pass legislation like the bills today that support our police officers 
and show them their sacrifices and services are appreciated.
  It is time for leaders to stand up for law enforcement and stop the 
anti-police rhetoric. I ask my colleagues on the other side to join 
with us in supporting and honoring law enforcement by voting for this 
rule today and supporting the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the underlying legislation, and I urge all 
Members to do so.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, as the longtime co-chair of the Law 
Enforcement Caucus, I am a staunch advocate for our law enforcement 
community.
  How the House is recognizing this Police Week is a disappointment. 
Before us are partisan messaging bills instead of measures that support 
our men and women in blue.
  This rule makes in order a pathetic resolution that ignores the 
service of federal law enforcement officers, including our Capitol 
Police.
  These brave men and women protected us when Donald Trump incited a 
mob of armed insurrectionists to attack our Capitol.
  The attack resulted in the death of five Capitol Police and MPD 
officers, and the injury of 150 officers.
  The resolution ignores the Republicans currently seeking to defund 
federal law enforcement agencies, like the FBI, ATF, and Homeland 
Security.
  And the resolution is silent on increasing funding for the Byrne JAG 
and the COPS Hiring programs.
  I offered 5 specific amendments to add these crucial elements to this 
resolution. But the Republicans did not make them in order. What are 
they afraid of?
  Armed officers can enhance public safety. But an officer in good 
standing is not defined in the Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon 
Purchase Act.
  We know an officer could be in good standing with their department 
but ineligible to carry a handgun.
  I offered two amendments to align this bill with New Jersey's 
interpretation of current law. Again, neither were made in order.
  Next Police Week let us take up actually make a difference for 
officers and their families. Not this partisan approach.
  God bless our police and God bless America.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 398 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of 
     Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees.
       Sec. 5. Clause l(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178.

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 are postponed.

                          ____________________