[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 15, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3218-H3227]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8369, ISRAEL SECURITY ASSISTANCE
SUPPORT ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7530, D.C. CRIMINAL
REFORMS TO IMMEDIATELY MAKE EVERYONE SAFE ACT OF 2024; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7343, DETAIN AND DEPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO
ASSAULT COPS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8146, POLICE OUR
BORDER ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7581, IMPROVING LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY AND WELLNESS THROUGH DATA ACT OF 2024;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 354, LEOSA REFORM ACT; PROVIDING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 1213, RESOLUTION REGARDING VIOLENCE
AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.
RES. 1210, CONDEMNING THE BIDEN BORDER CRISIS AND THE TREMENDOUS
BURDENS LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FACE AS A RESULT
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1227 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1227
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8369) to
provide for the expeditious delivery of defense articles and
defense services for Israel and other matters. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7530) to limit
youth offender status in the District of Columbia to
individuals 18 years of age or younger, to direct the
Attorney General of the District of Columbia to establish and
operate a publicly accessible website containing updated
statistics on juvenile crime in the District of Columbia, to
amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to prohibit the
Council of the District of Columbia from enacting changes to
existing criminal liability sentences, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and
Accountability or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. 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.
7343) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide
for the detention of certain aliens who commit assault
against law enforcement officers. 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. The amendment in
the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No
further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order
except those printed in part A of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further
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 further
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and
on any further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. 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.
8146) to require a report by the Attorney General on the
impact the border crisis is having on law enforcement at the
Federal, State, local, and Tribal level. 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. The amendment in
the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No
further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order
except those printed in part
[[Page H3219]]
B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such further 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 further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 5. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7581) to
require the Attorney General to develop reports relating to
violent attacks against law enforcement officers, and for
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now
printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill,
as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) 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) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 6. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 354) to amend
title 18, United States Code, to improve the Law Enforcement
Officer Safety Act and provisions relating to the carrying of
concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
118-34 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) 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) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 7. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1213) a resolution
regarding violence against law enforcement officers. 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 the Judiciary or their respective designees.
Sec. 8. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1210) condemning the
Biden border crisis and the tremendous burdens law
enforcement officers face as a result. 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 the Judiciary or their respective designees.
{time} 1215
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary
30 minutes to the distinguished 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.
General Leave
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. House Resolution 1227 provides for consideration of
eight measures: H.R. 8369, H.R. 7530, H.R. 7343, H.R. 8146, H.R. 7581,
H.R. 354, H. Res. 1213, and H. Res. 1210. The rule provides for H.R.
7343 and H.R. 8146 to be considered under structured rules with 1 hour
of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees,
and provides for one motion to recommit.
The rule further provides for consideration of two measures, H.R. 354
and H.R. 7581, under closed rules with 1 hour of debate each, equally
divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of
the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees, and provides for one
motion to recommit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H. Res. 1210 and H.
Res. 1213 under closed rules, with 1 hour of debate each, equally
divided and controlled by the Chair and the ranking minority member of
the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 7530 under a
closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight
and Accountability or their designees, and provides for one motion to
recommit.
Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8369 under a
closed rule with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by
the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs or their designee and provides for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
underlying legislation.
The rule before us provides for consideration of three measures to
support our Nation's law enforcement in the face of the Biden
administration's disastrous immigration policies.
H.R. 7343, the Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Cops Act,
would bring real consequences on the heads of those in our country
illegally. This legislation would require the immediate detention and
deportation of any illegal alien who chooses to assault the men and
women who keep our communities safe.
Additionally, H.R. 8146 would require that the Attorney General
provide a full accounting of how this historic and dangerous border
crisis has truly impacted the health and the safety of our Nation's law
enforcement.
Finally, H. Res. 1210 condemns the Biden administration's failed
border policies that have resulted in 9.3 million illegal alien
encounters along our borders in less than 4 years--and that doesn't
include those that have evaded Border Patrol.
America's law enforcement officers are on the front lines of the
Biden border crisis, bearing the brunt of this President's open-borders
policies that are threatening the security of our Nation and laying
waste to our communities.
We have yet to fully know the true damage done to our national
security by 4 years of flinging the doors open for those breaking our
laws. One thing is certain, it is falling on our Nation's law
enforcement officers--our police officers in big cities and small towns
across America--to contend with the consequences of this
administration's open-borders policies.
The Biden border crisis is only one challenge facing our Nation's law
enforcement officers. As we witness an alarming surge in criminal
activity thanks to the left's antipolice, soft-on-crime policies, it is
imperative that we confront a harsh reality. Our law enforcement
officers are under attack both physically and politically. They are
being targeted by the radical left simply for doing their jobs, for
upholding the rule of law, and for protecting our communities.
To that end, the rule today before us provides for consideration of
several measures that stand with our law enforcement officers in the
face of these asinine policies that seek to vilify them and prevent
them from doing their jobs, including H.R. 7581, the Improving Law
Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act; H.R. 354, the
LEOSA Reform Act; and H. Res. 1213, a resolution condemning violence
against our law enforcement officers.
H.R. 7581 would require the Department of Justice to report to
Congress about violent attacks on law enforcement officers and the
response of Federal, State, and local governments to these attacks.
[[Page H3220]]
Additionally, H.R. 354 would fix a discrepancy under current law to
ensure that qualified active or retired law enforcement officers are
not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in public settings.
There is no good reason why the men and women who put their lives on
the line for us every day should have their Second Amendment rights
curtailed as they are under the current law.
Finally, H. Res. 1213 expresses a sentiment that I hope my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle can fully embrace and get behind: full,
unequivocal support for our law enforcement officers and strong
opposition to any movement that seeks to defund the police.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter of statistics or headlines. The
soft-on-crime policies that the radical left have championed have only
left American families in more danger. Years of Democrat-elected
officials, including some right here in Congress, calling to defund the
police have vilified our law enforcement officers, preventing them from
doing their jobs, leaving the people that they serve less safe.
Nowhere is this displayed more vividly than right here in our
Nation's Capital, and the rule before us today also provides for
consideration of a bill to combat the District of Columbia's anti-law
enforcement, pro-criminal policies: H.R. 7530, the D.C. Criminal
Reforms to Immediately Make Everyone Safe Act.
D.C. law enforcement remains understaffed and overwhelmed by soaring
rates of violent crime. In 2023 alone, homicides increased 29 percent
from 2022, violent crime increased 37 percent, and robberies increased
65 percent.
What has the D.C. Council done?
Well, in 2022, it passed the Revised Criminal Code Act, which reduced
penalties for violent offenders, and in that same year the Council
passed the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act,
which targeted D.C. Metropolitan Police Department officers and their
ability to combat rising crime.
If the D.C. Council will not heed the concerns of the District's
residents, police officers, and visitors from this country and around
the world, then it is Congress' job to step in. This mess only
encourages lawlessness and puts lives at risk. We have had one of our
own colleagues, a Member of Congress, carjacked and a staffer stabbed,
among many other horrifying and violent crimes. If we can't get a
handle on crime in our Nation's beautiful Capital, how does that fare
for the rest of the country?
H.R. 7530 changes the maximum age limit for youth offender status
from 24 years old to 18 years old. It requires the District's attorney
general to establish and update a public website containing juvenile
crime statistics in the District and prohibits the D.C. Council from
enacting any changes to criminal sentences.
Youth criminal activity has skyrocketed along with every other manner
of violent crime in our Nation's Capital. A soft-on-crime approach is
simply just not working, putting the lives of innocent residents and
visitors in danger, and hamstringing the ability of our cops to do
their jobs.
Residents of D.C. have the same rights as other Americans to be
secure in their homes and to be protected against crimes committed
against their lives and their property. It is heartbreaking to see the
crimes committed by children and young people in D.C., and we need real
solutions to address them. Children in our Nation's Capital deserve
better than antipolice policies that lead them to a life of crime.
It is our duty as Members of Congress, as laid out in the D.C. Home
Rule Act, to step in when the District's own policies so clearly
threaten the safety of the residents of our Nation's Capital as they do
today.
Finally, the rule before us provides for consideration of H.R. 8369,
the Israel Security Assistance Support Act.
Mr. Speaker, it is frankly shocking and disgusting to hear that
President Biden is purposely withholding our Nation's arms shipments to
Israel as they are fighting to defend their right to exist.
At a time when Israel is under assault, facing attacks from Hamas and
Iran, the decision to withhold these critical munitions is not just a
failure; it is a betrayal of our greatest ally in the Middle East, and
it goes directly against the will of this Congress and the will of the
people.
We cannot let political games endanger lives. H.R. 8369 would ensure
that America stands with Israel in its darkest hour, despite this
administration's disgraceful actions to block such vital support. The
legislation will ensure that any defense articles and defense services
for Israel are delivered expeditiously, without obstruction from an
administration that is willing to play games, unfortunately, with such
necessary shipments, and we will prevent them subverting the will of
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, America must stand with Israel and send a message to the
world that we will not falter. I urge my colleagues to support this
rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1230
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans have us here today considering eight
measures that aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Six of the
eight measures that are being brought before this House are being
brought forth under completely closed rules, which means nobody, not
Democrats and not Republicans, can offer any amendments to change or
improve those bills.
So much for Republican promises of a more deliberative process or
more openness or more fairness. That just went out the window.
I don't think I have ever seen a group of people do so much and yet
accomplish so little.
Seven of these measures are supposedly about law enforcement.
Madam Speaker, do you know how many of them will actually do
something to help keep people safe?
Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Just a piece of free advice to my Republican friends: It is probably
not the best idea to take direction on law and order from a guy who, as
we speak, is a defendant for covering up hush money payments to a porn
star for political gain. That is not even to mention the other three
criminal felony prosecutions that he faces.
Look at the cover of today's New York Times, Madam Speaker. This is
unbelievable. Here is a picture of the Speaker of this House of
Representatives, second in line to the Presidency, standing in front of
a courthouse acting as a prop for Donald Trump trying to interfere with
a criminal trial because, apparently, Republicans like law and order
unless it applies to them.
It is unbelievable. Madam Speaker, you can't make this stuff up.
I will say to my colleagues that this stunt of the Speaker and
Republican Members of Congress going to this courthouse diminishes this
House of Representatives. Their candidate for President has been
indicted more times than he has been elected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Bice). The Chair would remind Members
to refrain from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees
for the Office of President.
Mr. McGOVERN. I didn't think I was.
Somehow, Madam Speaker, they have the nerve to tell us about the
criminal justice system?
Give me a break.
Their credibility on this issue has evaporated. It is pathetic. I
could go through these bills one by one, but I think the American
people would rather watch paint dry because none of these bills do
anything. None of these bills will be passed by the Senate. None of
them will do a damn thing to help the police. None of them will keep
our communities safe. We have a ton of BS bills going out to
immigrants. Let me just remind everyone: It was Republicans who killed
their own bipartisan border security bill in the Senate, and it is
Republicans in the House who refused to even bring it up for a vote.
Why?
It is because they are afraid it might pass. They are afraid they
might lose a talking point.
We have a nonbinding resolution about defund the police.
Isn't it ironic that they all talk so much about defunding the
police, but despite their rhetoric, Republicans are the ones who want
to defund the police.
Republicans support cutting the COPS program, which hires police
officers in every State in America.
[[Page H3221]]
Get this, Madam Speaker: Republicans voted against awarding police
officers who protected all of us on January 6 the Congressional Gold
Medal. Let that sink in.
Republicans voted to fire 2,000 Customs and Border Protection police
officers. Republicans voted to cut Federal support for local law
enforcement agencies in September of 2022.
Republicans have called to abolish the FBI, the Department of
Justice, and the ATF.
At every single juncture, when Republicans have had a chance to put
their money where their mouth is, they have shown that all their pro-
police rhetoric is just that: rhetoric.
They will say whatever they need to win political support from police
and then hope the cops don't notice when they vote to cut their
budgets.
The eighth bill this rule would bring to the floor is the so-called
Israel Security Assistance Support Act. This bill is a disaster. It
basically gets rid of human rights checks and balances already in place
on arms transfers, and it would interfere with any administration's
ability to comply with U.S. obligations under international human
rights and humanitarian law.
I think it is absurd that my Republican friends don't understand the
difference between supporting Israel and writing Prime Minister
Netanyahu a blank check to do whatever the hell he wants with U.S.
weapons with no regard for civilian lives or for human rights.
That is not even just the Democratic position, by the way. Three U.S.
Presidents have threatened to pause military aid to Israel under
similar circumstances.
Who were they?
They were Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush.
They were all Republicans, Madam Speaker. They were all Republicans.
Please don't give me this partisan BS. Please. Please, spare us that.
U.S. military assistance doesn't come with no conditions. If our
taxpayers are paying for it, then they ought to have some level of
assurance that it is not being used to indiscriminately bomb civilians
or block the delivery of humanitarian aid to starving people.
The bombs that the President is withholding, these 2-ton bombs, have
a blast radius of one-quarter of a mile. That means, I would say to my
friends, if you were standing in front of this Capitol and the bomb
were dropped on the Republican congressional campaign headquarters or
the Democratic congressional campaign headquarters, then we all would
be dead if we were standing in front of the U.S. Capitol.
The President is concerned that 2-ton bombs are being dropped on
Rafah, a heavily populated area with over 1 million people. He believes
that the civilian casualties are unacceptable. We all should care about
the civilian casualties, especially if we claim to be a friend of
Israel, because the more civilian casualties that are incurred, then
the more difficulty Israel has in getting to a lasting peace.
It is a real shame that this is what Republicans have decided we
should spend our week doing, Madam Speaker. I had hoped, Madam Speaker,
that after the Democrats bailed out Speaker Mike Johnson last week
that maybe, just maybe, we would see a change in the tone of this
place. Maybe there would be more of an acknowledgment that we need to
put people over politics and that we need to get stuff done, because
that is what the American people want.
I am disappointed to see that this week it is just more of the same
old same old from this incompetent Republican leadership that has
wasted away their time and power and accomplished nothing, not a single
damn thing, during their time in their slim majority. The American
people deserve a hell of a lot better than they are getting from my
friends on the Republican side.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle likes to
talk about the fact that these bills today that we are going to
consider this week, these pro-police measures, don't have a future in
the Senate or getting to the desk of the President. Yes, that is
because his party controls those two branches. The Senate leadership
will do nothing with this because they don't support the underlying
legislation. They don't support law enforcement.
I would like to point out that it was Democrats who have for years
pushed the defund the police rhetoric in cities, States, and right here
in Washington, not House Republicans. In fact, it was Democrats who
took the defund the police rhetoric and made it viral. They turned it
into concrete policy that demonizes our men and women in blue while
letting violent criminals back out on the street.
Madam Speaker, do you think the American people are really going to
buy that Democrats weren't the ones who wanted to defund the police?
Madam Speaker, we could rewind the tape back to 2020 if you want to.
We can show you the footage of our cities burning while they were
chanting to defund the police and watching weak mayors of cities down
on one knee begging for forgiveness for standing for law and order. We
could go back and rewind the tape and get a little instant replay if
you like. The footage is there. It is in black and white. It is a
matter of historical fact that my friend's party supported the defund
the police movement.
What I just heard from the other side of the aisle couldn't be any
more laughable. Democrats in New York City, certainly not Republicans,
cut the NYPD's budget by $1 billion with more cuts to come. We have
some of those brave NYPD officers here with us this week for Police
Week.
Democrats in Los Angeles, not Republicans, cut the LAPD's budget by
hundreds of millions of dollars with more cuts to come.
Democrats in Chicago, not Republicans, cut the Chicago PD's budget by
$1 billion only to embarrassingly and quietly reverse further plans for
cuts in recent years after crime spiraled out of control.
Right here in our Nation's Capital it was Democrats, not Republicans,
who passed legislation to make it more difficult than ever for cops to
do their jobs and keep D.C.'s communities and residents safe. Let's not
forget that at the height of the defund the police movement, it was
House Democrats, not House Republicans, who attempted to completely
defund the Department of Justice's Project Safe Neighborhoods program,
a nationwide initiative that empowers law enforcement to work with
community leaders and stakeholders to directly identify the most
pressing violent crime problems in a community. I am talking rapes,
armed robberies, gang violence, and much, much more.
Nonetheless, that didn't stop House Democrats from defunding this
program to appease a radical base. The radical left has bought hook,
line, and sinker into the defund the police movement, and Americans in
New York, in Washington, in Chicago, in L.A., and everywhere else where
Democrat leaders hold sway are reaping the consequences of these
dangerous policies.
Madam Speaker, the family of slain NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller told
New York Governor Kathy Hochul that she had blood on her hands. They
see, as Americans across the country see, that it is the Democrats and
not the Republicans who have abandoned law enforcement. They have
vilified them, and they have made it harder than ever for them to do
their job and keep their people safe.
The legislation under this rule today is a step in the direction of
supporting our law enforcement officers and empowering them with the
tools to keep our communities safe in spite of the defund the police
movement and in spite of the Biden border crisis.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess), who is the chairman of the Rules Committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for
yielding, and I thank him for leading this discussion on behalf of the
Rules Committee today.
I wanted to come down and speak in support of the rule, and I want to
speak in support of the underlying bills.
We do honor National Police Week. Republicans are advancing seven
pieces of legislation to reaffirm their commitment to our Nation's law
enforcement. Yet, again, we are seeing our colleagues misrepresenting
the legislation that really should be bipartisan.
[[Page H3222]]
Every single day, Madam Speaker, thousands of men and women in blue
put their lives on the line to protect their communities and keep We
the People safe.
Last year, in fact, more than 370 law enforcement officers were shot
in the line of duty, the highest year on record.
Law enforcement officers and their departments are under increased
scrutiny from the public, all the while trying to navigate a crisis at
our southern border, a historic upsurge in crime, and an unfortunate
rise in drug-related deaths throughout the country.
It is no surprise then, Madam Speaker, that the police departments
across the country have had trouble recruiting and retaining officers
and keeping new officer candidates.
This week, started by President Kennedy in 1962, is set aside to
commemorate and honor all of the officers who have lost their lives in
the line of duty. I am grateful to north Texas law enforcement officers
who paid the ultimate sacrifice this year and for those who are
currently serving.
In honor of this week, I encourage everyone to reach out and thank
their local law enforcement officers and their families for their
service and for their sacrifice.
Madam Speaker, I also wanted to express my support for the Israel
Security Assistance Support Act. Amid the Biden administration's pause
on munitions shipments to Israel, it is imperative for the United
States, for this House, and for Republicans and Democrats, to stand
behind Israel.
Last week, President Biden and his administration paused vital
defense articles from shipment to Israel. This action will have the
effect of not only prolonging the conflict, but it is an unfortunate
disregard of the legislative process of our powers granted under
Article I of the Constitution. The idea that the President can ignore
bipartisan, bicameral legislation that he signed into law is a new
predicament entirely.
H.R. 8369 provides for the assured timely delivery of defense
services and articles to Israel and condemns the Biden administration
for their efforts to condition aid to an ally.
{time} 1245
After the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Madam Speaker, maintaining our
commitment to a formal ally is extremely necessary and important.
Israel is defending itself against a regional threat. It is defending
itself against a known terrorist organization, one that hides behind
its own people.
Israel must have the resources it needs to combat Hamas and any other
entity that seeks to destroy civil rights and civil liberties.
It is for this reason that the United States will continue to stand
by our allies in their time of need.
Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support the underlying bill, and I
urge support for the rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, it is rich to be lectured by the chairman of the Rules
Committee about the need to support our police officers and to help do
more to recruit and train them.
I will say to my friend, the distinguished Member from Texas (Mr.
Burgess), and to all of my Republican friends: Stop cutting COPS
grants. Continue to adequately fund the COPS program so that we can
actually have our local law enforcement recruit and hire more police
officers.
My Republican friends don't like to admit a desire to cut the COPS
grants. I would say to everybody who is watching to look it up for
themselves.
The Republican Study Committee, which is the largest caucus in the
Republican Conference, actually put out a report titled: ``Fiscal
Sanity to Save America.'' If my colleagues go to page 148, and I urge
people to look it up for themselves, it says: ``Reduce funding for
Community Oriented Policing Services,'' or basically what we call the
COPS grants.
Republicans want to cut money for our local police. It is in their
budget document. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to
cut the money and then come here and make believe somehow that
Republicans support our local police officers. Come on. Enough.
Additionally, sometimes I wonder whether the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Langworthy) really believes the stuff that he says. The gentleman
keeps talking about crime in Democrat-run cities. By the way, it is
Democratic-run cities. The last time I checked, we don't have
Democratic cities or Republican cities in this country. We have
American cities.
I took the liberty of looking up some of the headlines from New
York's 23rd Congressional District, which Mr. Langworthy represents,
and, in particular, Jamestown, New York, the largest city in the area
and the location of his district office. Jamestown has a Republican
mayor, a Republican city council, a Republican supermajority on the
county legislature, a Republican State representative, a Republican
State senator, and a Republican Congressman.
Let's look at some of the recent headlines from the Republican
stronghold of Jamestown, New York: April 22, 2024, ``Jamestown man
accused of killing 16-month-old child charged with manslaughter'';
March 2024, ``1 dead, 2 injured in Jamestown homicide''; January 2024,
``Investigation Underway in Jamestown Homicide Case''; May 2023,
``Three Accused Of Stealing A Vehicle In Jamestown''; June 2021, ``Two
teenage girls charged with arson in connection with Jamestown furniture
manufacturer fire''; and February 2024, ``Six arrested after robbery,
assault leads to standoff in Jamestown NY.''
I could go on and on. Madam Speaker, none of this is to disparage the
wonderful people who Mr. Langworthy represents, but if the gentleman
wants to come down here and read off RNC talking points about crime, I
think the gentleman should at least try to be intellectually honest.
I know the other side wants to play the blame game. I know
Republicans are all about stunts and not solutions, but maybe, just
maybe, the majority ought to look in the mirror first instead of
playing to the cheap seats.
Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to include in the Record a
Salon article titled: ``Republicans like to talk tough on crime--but
they're the ones with a real crime problem.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From salon, Feb. 15, 2023]
Republicans Like To Talk Tough on Crime--But They're the Ones With a
Real Crime Problem
(By Austin Sarat)
Republicans like to talk tough about crime. But they have a
crime problem of their own that they want to keep under
wraps.
A new study of homicide by the nonpartisan advocacy group
Third Way reveals a fact that Republicans don't want to
acknowledge. Rates of violent crime, especially murder rates,
are higher in red states than in blue states.
That has been true for years, yet Democrats have said
almost nothing about this startling fact or about
Republicans' evident incompetence in actually doing something
about crime.
Crime is an American problem, touching the lives of people
in cities, suburbs and rural areas. Yet for all its talk
about crime, the Republican Party has not delivered an
effective strategy to fight it.
Of course, you would never know that from listening to
Republican politicians or the public officials who represent
red states. They take every opportunity to try to convince
voters that crime is a problem made worse by ``liberal''
policies, and that it runs rampant in cities and states where
Democrats are in charge.
Consider the charges in an op-ed written by House
Republican Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., and Rep. Scott
Fitzgerald, R-Wis., for the Fox News site in the run-up to
the 2022 election.
``Over the last few years,'' they wrote, ``we have seen the
consequences of leftist Democrats' embrace of the radical
`Defund the Police' and `No Cash Bail' movements. By slashing
police budgets, ending cash bail, and allowing violent
offenders back onto our streets, radical Democrats nationwide
have made our communities less safe.''
Violent crime, they said, was out of control in ``every
Democrat-run city and state across the country.''
Echoing Scalise and Fitzgerald, Kevin McCarthy, the
recently installed Republican speaker of the House, bluntly
claimed that ``Democrat politicians defended police, raised
money for rioters, and pushed policies that are soft on
crime. They own this crime wave.''
Looking back at the 2022 midterm elections, CNN reported
that ``Over the first three weeks of October (2022), GOP
candidates and committees spent $64.5 million on ads focused
on crime--nearly one-quarter of all the money they spent on
ads over that period. . . . . Many of those ads accused
[[Page H3223]]
Democrats of supporting the ending of cash bail or efforts to
defund the police.''
Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson's re-election campaign provides
one example of this attempt to pin the soft-on-crime label on
Democrats. Johnson ran a series of ads attacking his
Democratic opponent, Mandela Barnes, for advocating an end to
cash bail.
The ads ended with the tagline, ``Mandela Barnes, not Just
a Democrat, but a dangerous Democrat'' and a racially charged
image of Barnes superimposed over a picture of several
Democratic women of color who serve in the House of
Representatives and are known as the ``Squad.'' Johnson wound
up winning that race by an exceedingly narrow margin, just
26,000 votes out of more than 2.6 million cast.
Not surprisingly, a 2022 Gallup Poll found that
``partisanship plays a significant role in shaping Americans'
assessments of crime.''
Gallup reports that ``since 2000, supporters of the
president's party have typically been less likely than those
who identify with the opposition party to say that crime has
increased. Before that, during both George H.W. Bush's and
Bill Clinton's presidencies, partisans held similar
perceptions of the crime problem.''
Gallup also found that ``Last October, with Joe Biden in
the White House and after the FBI released its 2020 crime
statistics showing a sharp increase in murders in the U.S.,
the percentage of Republicans who said there was more local
crime increased from 38% to 67%. Independents' perception
that local crime was worse also edged up, while Democrats'
view was essentially unchanged.''
But Republicans' hypocritical exploitation of the crime
issue isn't just an election-year phenomenon.
Last month they went on the attack when Washington, D.C.'s
Democratic City Council overrode Mayor Muriel Bowser's veto
of the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022. The city ordinance
modernized the District's criminal laws, which had not been
overhauled for more than 100 years.
It was designed to ``expand eligibility for the Second Look
Act from youthful, convicted violent offenders to people of
all ages;. . . expand the right to a Jury trial for those
charged with misdemeanors but facing jail time; and. . .
reduce maximum criminal penalties for violent crimes like
carjacking and robberies.''
Republicans quickly pounced, using the accusation that
Democrats are soft on crime in a successful effort to get the
House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional
authority to override the D.C. law.
Americans' perception of crime is now a partisan issue,
driven by which party holds power. But Republicans'
hypocritical exploitation of crime is no longer just an
election-year phenomenon.
One local news story quotes Rep. James Corner, R-Ky , chair
of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, as
saying that, ``There's a crime crisis in America's capital
city. According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department,
carjackings in the District have increased by 90% compared to
this time last year. Total property crime is up 31%, and
homicides are up 29%.''
But, following the usual Republican playbook, Comer wasn't
content to recite those facts.
``The radical D.C. Council,'' he continued ``has chosen to
prioritize legislation that will turn this crime crisis into
a catastrophe. The D.C. Council's progressive soft-on-crime
legislation eliminates almost all the mandatory minimum
sentencing requirements for violent crimes, and it
drastically reduces the maximum penalties allowable to the
courts.''
While Republicans talk about the crime rate in Democratic
run cities like Washington, they won't own up to their own
problems in dealing with crime. These problems were
highlighted in a 2022 Los Angeles Magazine article which
pointed out that murder rates in ``mid-sized cities with
Republican mayors have actually fared far worse than big
cities with Democratic mayors.''
For example, the homicide rate in Bakersfield, California--
the principal city in Kevin McCarthy's district--was more
than twice as high as that of San Francisco, represented in
the house by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
This brings us back to the Third Way report, which points
out that what is true in California is true across the
nation. The report meticulously documents the Republicans'
hidden crime problem.
``The murder rate in Trump-voting states,'' the Third Way
report says, ``has exceeded the murder rate in Biden-voting
states every year this century. Cumulatively, overall murder
rates since 2000 were on average 23% higher in Trump-voting
states.'' It continues:
For the past 21 years, the top 10 murder rate states have
been dominated by reliably red states, namely Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Missouri. And when we removed the
county with the largest city in Trump-voting states (and kept
them in for Biden-voting states), murder rates were still
significantly higher in these red states.
While media reports give the impression that murder rates
are skyrocketing in blue areas, murder rates have actually
increased at far higher rates in Trump-voting states over the
past two decades, widening the Red State murder gap from a
low of 9% in 2003 and 2004 to a high of 44% in 2019, before
falling to 43% in 2020. Since 2000, murder rates have
increased 39.4% in red states and just 13.4% in blue states.
It's time for Democrats to make these facts known, and stop
giving Republicans a free pass on the crime issue. They need
to expose Republican cynicism, hypocrisy and incompetence in
dealing with crime--and remind voters of these failings at
every opportunity.
As Jim Kessler, Third Way's executive VP for policy puts
it, ``Republicans seem to do a much better job of talking
about stopping crime than actually stopping crime.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, it is great to see that my colleague, the ranking
member, has looked into Jamestown, New York, and read some of our
headlines. Yes, we have Republican leadership right now, a brand-new
elected Republican mayor. There was a Democratic mayor up until this
last election, but I don't blame the outgoing Democratic mayor.
I do blame the State of New York's leadership for destroying the
criminal justice system in the State of New York, eliminating cash
bail, and creating discovery reform. Creating a revolving-door criminal
justice system in the State of New York is the reason that the police
officers, many of which are at our Capitol this very week to celebrate
Police Week, can't do their jobs.
They have been put in handcuffs while the criminals walk free with an
appearance ticket for many of the same crimes that the gentleman just
rattled off from the Jamestown Post-Journal. That is fact. That is fact
in the State of New York because Democrat-run policies, a Democratic
Governor, a supermajority in the State senate, and a supermajority in
the State assembly have destroyed my State's criminal justice system.
They have blood on their hands and have destroyed towns, villages, and
cities across the once-great Empire State.
The gentleman has found a few headlines, and we hope to get some
restoration of common sense back to the Empire State once again, but it
has to start right here in our Nation's Capital. It starts with the
legislation under this rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Kiley), my friend.
Mr. KILEY. Madam Speaker, a couple of days ago, the former Democratic
majority leader of this body called out the radicals in his own party
who are reflecting the talking points and rhetoric of Hamas, which, of
course, wishes for the destruction of the State of Israel.
Unfortunately, it now seems that these radical elements have won out
in terms of influencing policy in the White House and, as the former
majority leader of Democrats in this House stated, in terms of getting
their views that reflect the views of Hamas to become official policy
of the White House.
The President's recent statements suggesting that he will withhold
vital security assistance for Israel are appalling and absolutely
unacceptable. They fly in the face of the strong bipartisan vote that
this body recently took to provide support for our vital ally, Israel,
as it seeks to make sure that Hamas can never do again what it did on
October 7.
The President's actions, moreover, threaten to prolong the conflict
that currently exists and are a threat to the long-term peace and
stability of the region.
I am glad that we now have legislation before us that will rebuke the
President and will ensure that the security assistance that this House
has already approved finds its way to our ally, Israel.
I also speak in support of H.J. Res. 1213, which denounces calls to
defund the police that have been so damaging to public safety and to
law enforcement across this country.
In my own State of California, we have a number of jurisdictions,
like in San Francisco, the East Bay, and Los Angeles, that did defund
police and were then forced to restore that funding and to backtrack.
The reality is this is just one of a number of policies that have
caused crime in California and many other places in this country to
spiral out of control and have made the job of our law enforcement
officers more and more difficult, to the point at which many
departments are having a very difficult time with recruitment and
retention and making sure they are fully
[[Page H3224]]
staffed and have the personnel that they need to keep their communities
safe.
Policies like defunding the police, policies that have removed the
consequences for criminal activity, policies by district attorneys who
refuse to enforce the law, and sanctuary policies where individuals who
are here illegally and commit serious crimes cannot be turned over to
the immigration authorities are destructive policies that have
manifested a disrespect toward our men and women in law enforcement who
put their lives on the line every single day to keep our communities
safe.
Madam Speaker, I urge strong bipartisan support for this resolution
denouncing calls to defund the police, and I hope that we can swing the
pendulum further in the direction of the support that our law
enforcement deserves so that we don't continue to face these problems
with recruitment and retention and so that we can keep our communities
safe.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with the gentleman from California
(Mr. Kiley), but let me say to the gentleman that, rather than just
denounce the slogan of defunding the police, maybe the gentleman should
go to the Republican Study Committee and tell them to not defund the
police because, again, if one goes to the Republican Study Group
document, page 148, it is clear that the Republicans want to defund the
COPS program.
Please, enough with the rhetoric. If my colleagues are serious about
supporting the police, then don't cut the COPS program, period. How
hard is this?
I remind the gentleman that the hometown of the former Republican
Speaker of this House, before the Republicans threw him out, Kevin
McCarthy, which is Bakersfield, California, has a higher crime rate
than San Francisco. I don't even know where my friends are coming from.
I have to say that I have never heard anybody denounce their home
State as much as I have heard the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Langworthy) denounce New York. I think New York is a great State. It is
not as good as Massachusetts, but I think it is a great State.
I get it. The gentleman just explained it all to me. If it is a
Democratic-controlled area, all the crime is blamed on the Democrat. If
it is a Republican-controlled area, then the majority finds the nearest
Democrat, and Republicans blame it on the Democrat. That is their
rationale.
I mean, come on. This place has to get more serious in terms of
supporting initiatives to actually not only support law enforcement but
protect our communities instead of one sound bite after another that
does absolutely nothing and the blame game that we hear constantly.
Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues this week claim to want to
focus on public safety but have chosen to put misguided measures and
messaging bills on the floor. Here is their chance to actually do
something of substance that will make police officers safer, make our
streets safer, and make our children safer.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up H.R. 715, a bipartisan bill to require a background
check for every firearm sale.
There were over 42,000 firearm deaths last year, with the annual
total of mass shootings increasing from 414 in 2019 to over 650 in
2023. Eighty-six percent of homicides in this country involve a
firearm, and of the States that saw their gun homicide rate decrease
between 2022 and 2023, States with the strongest gun laws decreased
their homicides by a rate nearly triple their lax gun law counterparts.
This is common sense. It is not a partisan issue. In fact, H.R. 715,
the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, was introduced--hold on to your
seats here--by a Republican.
I know that, like me, many of my colleagues have children and all of
them have elementary schools and middle schools in their districts. I
know Members see the toll this is taking on our Nation's children, our
most vulnerable. Nearly 60 percent of teachers are worried about a
shooting happening in their school, and one in four had a gun-related
lockdown during the last school year. According to the Pew Research
Center, one in five parents was extremely concerned about their child
getting shot, and Republican leadership wants to do nothing.
This is barbaric. It is past time, Madam Speaker, and we are ready to
work in a bipartisan way to end the epidemic of gun violence in this
country.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with 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. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ivey) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. IVEY. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
I must say that Police Week, when I was a prosecutor at the Federal
level and at the State level, was something I looked forward to. I
worked closely with police officers, local, State, and Federal. They
worked together as brothers and sisters in coordination and cooperation
with prosecutors. In many instances, they had task forces where the
Federal and local worked together, knowing that that was the way that
made them most effective.
It was deeply disappointing to see the bills that came through this
week that are supposed to be honoring police officers for Police Week.
Some of these came through the Judiciary Committee beforehand, which I
sit on, and so I raised objections at the time with respect to this
legislation, which was ignored.
It is with a heavy heart, frankly, that I rise today because, as one
of the Republican speakers a few minutes ago noted, I think 370 police
officers have been shot. It is clear that one of the greatest dangers
police officers face on the street is from guns.
{time} 1300
The irony is that the legislation that the Republicans have proposed
do nothing about guns. In fact, they don't even mention them in most
cases, which is really shocking.
Now, my colleague from Massachusetts just mentioned a few minutes ago
the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, H.R. 715, and he noted that the
sponsor of that is a Republican, but he is the only Republican to join
this bill. The other 207 cosponsors are all Democrats, and I think that
speaks volumes about where the Republicans are these days on this kind
of issue.
H.R. 2870, the Raise the Age Act, which is aimed at bolstering public
safety by raising the age for individuals to buy assault weapons from
18 to 21, is commonsense legislation. It is already 21 for handguns.
Why wouldn't we do it for assault weapons? We don't have one Republican
cosponsor for that legislation.
Another example is H.R. 4992, that goes to ghost guns. The issue
about ghost guns is that they are totally untraceable firearms, so they
have become the weapon of choice for criminals across the country, blue
States, red States, Democratic and Republican jurisdictions alike.
There are zero Republican cosponsors for that legislation.
It is with great disappointment that we come here today and speak
about Police Week, and we ought to be doing things to protect police
officers from dangers on the street, but absolutely nothing that is in
the legislative package that is being proposed would do that.
One last point before I yield back. With respect to the defund
language, none of that is pending legislation with respect to police in
the Congress right now. The only defund language that I have seen right
now is defund ATF and FBI.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. IVEY. Madam Speaker, those are sponsored by Republicans. The
defund ATF bill is one sentence long. When I raised the question with
the gentleman who proposed it in the committee, I said: How in the
world is that supposed
[[Page H3225]]
to work? How would you defund the entire ATF knowing that we have got
gun cases pending there now?
I have the same question about the FBI. International prosecutions,
cartels, and the like, you would just shut them down like that? That is
what those bills would do. Talk about being irresponsible. That is what
that proposal is right now. Let's get serious.
We are facing major challenges. By the way, crime is going down in
cities across the country. You mentioned the 2019 statistics. You stay
with 2019 because violent crime has been going down in jurisdictions,
including the District of Columbia this year, as well.
Let's get serious. Let's focus on doing things that really help
protect police officers and make the most out of Police Week.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Speaker, my friends across the aisle are making
some wild claims that somehow crime has gone down. It is like President
Biden taking a bow for gas prices going from five bucks a gallon to
four bucks a gallon when they were far less than that just before he
was sworn in.
My colleague's claims rest on cherry-picked data that does not
present a full picture of the crime problem in our major cities, so
let's revisit some of the facts.
Violent crime has skyrocketed with year over year increases in
violent crime in the millions. Carjackings have spiked by as much as 93
percent in many major cities and 18 percent more homicides were
committed in 2023 than in 2019.
It is no coincidence that many of these major cities that have been
the epicenter of the wave in violent crime also happen to be run by
Democratic politicians with leftwing DAs that have made it their
mission not to prosecute perpetrators but to put dangerous criminals
back on the streets and to facilitate a revolving door criminal justice
system.
My colleagues need only to venture beyond Capitol Hill to see what
these policies have done to our Nation's Capital. To recap here,
according to the Metro Police Department's own data, crime in D.C.
increased 30 percent in 2023 compared to the previous year.
In 2023 alone, homicides increased 29 percent compared to 2022. In
fact, since 2012, the rate of homicides in D.C. has doubled. Violent
crime has increased 37 percent and robberies increased 65 percent from
2022 to 2023. Motor vehicle thefts increased 107 percent between 2022
and 2023.
This surge of criminal activity is a direct result of the D.C.
Council's soft-on-crime sentencing policy and refusal to back up its
law enforcement officers with real support, resulting in resignations
of police officers. We have heard it directly in the Oversight
Committee from the union officials.
Madam Speaker, despite my colleague's refusal to wake up to the
reality, the fact remains that we are at this point today with crime
soaring in many of our major cities and Americans are feeling less safe
because of the disastrous policies the Democratic leaders, at the
behest of the radical left that governs their party have imposed on
residents of our communities.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman keeps on talking about
crime in D.C., crime in D.C., crime on the rise. I can tell you one
thing; the crime is definitely down in the White House right now and I
can understand why the gentleman is confused.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an
article from the Washington Post, entitled: ``Crime is down, though FOX
News viewers might not be aware.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From the Washington Post, Dec. 18, 2023]
Crime Is Down, Though Fox News Viewers Might Not Be Aware
(By Phillip Bump)
Crime declined in the third quarter of 2023 relative to the
same period in 2022, according to data released by the FBI
last week. Violent crime was down 8 percent in jurisdictions
that reported data--law enforcement agencies covering three-
quarters of U.S. residents. Property crime was down 6
percent. Murder was down more than 15 percent.
What's particularly useful about the new FBI data is that
the shifts are presented by the population each responding
agency serves. So we can see that the drop isn't a function
just of a shift in smaller cities but, instead, occurred
across the board. Property crime was up slightly--0.1
percent--in the most populous cities. But violent crime was
down in those places, as it was everywhere else. In fact, the
biggest cities saw the biggest drops in murder.
It's important to recognize the limits on this data. For
one thing, data on crime is notoriously slow. The FBI didn't
release summary data on 2022 until October. This quarter-to-
quarter comparison, by contrast, is relatively expedient--but
it is still only a look at one quarter of the year. It is
also still several months old and limited to jurisdictions
that returned information. If we look at the 10 largest
cities, for example, we see that Los Angeles and Chicago are
missing. In five of the eight that returned data, property
crime was up. Only in Dallas, though, had murder climbed
relative to the third quarter of 2022.
This is not the narrative that has dominated on the right,
particularly on Fox News. Since crime began to surge during
the pandemic, cable-news coverage of crime increased. But on
Fox News in particular, coverage was consistently higher
during the Biden administration relative to the first three
years of Donald Trump's presidency. The peak came in October
2022--as the channel tried, successfully, to ensure that the
rise in crime that had already begun to wane was a central
discussion point for the midterm elections. That month, Fox
News was three times as likely to mention crime in any 15-
second block of airtime as was CNN.
Fox News coverage has consistently focused on crime in
urban areas. There are a few obvious reasons, including that
the Fox News audience (understandably) associates cities with
Democratic leadership, because cities are more heavily non-
White and that urban density increases the likelihood that
someone will capture an act of violence or vandalism on video
that can run over and over and over again.
Even with crime dropping, Fox is still talking about crime
as though it's on the rise. This is often done by cherry-
picking, finding a city or a statistic where crime has gone
up and then focusing on it. Often, though, it's simply
presented as a given, which its audience--given what it sees
on the news--will assume to be the case.
In response to the FBI report, Fox News offered a very
useful distillation of how it makes lemonade out of the peck
of lemons that is ``crime isn't actually rising.'' On
Saturday, NBC News's Ken Dilanian published a look at the
FBI's data which noted polling showing that Americans think
crime is rising. (This is almost always the case.) Fox News's
response? To present Dilanian's report to its online readers
as though the NBC presentation of facts was, instead, an
indicator of media bias.
``NBC News story tells Americans they're `wrong' to think
crime is rising,'' the Fox News headline reads, ``blames
`conditioning' of press.'' The piece is littered with similar
scare quotes, with the apparent intent of reinforcing the
belief that crime is rising solely by pointing out that the
hated mainstream media says it isn't.
``Dilanian's report caps off another year in which ordinary
Americans have expressed growing alarm about crime in big
cities,'' the Fox News report notes--by itself a revealing
admission. Whether there is ``growing alarm'' is taken for
granted; that any such alarm would not be warranted isn't
mentioned.
The reality is that crime surged in 2020--when Trump was
president. That surge continued into the Biden administration
but has since waned.
Given that Fox News invested so much effort in promoting
crime as surging before the midterms despite lacking any
evidence that it was (since it wasn't), we should not be
surprised that its response to crime falling further is to
melodramatically roll their eyes, point to mainstream
reporting, and say the equivalent of, ``get a load of these
guys.''
The reality is inconvenient for what it's spent the past
three years telling its viewers.
Mr. McGOVERN. The article notes: ``The reality is that crime surged
in 2020--when Trump was President. That surge continued into the Biden
administration but has since waned.''
Madam Speaker, in the lead up to the 2022 midterms, FOX News invested
immense resources in promoting stories about surging crime, despite
lacking evidence. While crime is down, it appears the conservative
ecosystem is trying to fearmonger the issue of crime, once again,
because, you know, that is all they have.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an
article from The Guardian, entitled: ``Crime coverage on FOX News
halved once U.S. midterms were over.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From the Guardian, Nov. 25, 2022]
Crime Coverage on Fox News Halved Once US Midterms Were Over
(By Adam Gabbatt)
Just a week after elections, number of weekly segments focused on crime
slashed in half on Rupert Murdoch's flagship network
In the weeks leading up to the US midterm elections, the
message from Fox News was
[[Page H3226]]
clear: violent crime is surging, cities are dangerous
hellscapes and Democrats are responsible.
With the vote over, however, the rightwing news channel
appeared to decide things weren't that bad after all, and
decreased its coverage of violent crime by 50% compared with
the pre-election average.
Media Matters for America, a media watchdog, found that
each week from Labor Day until the Friday before the Tuesday
8 November vote, the network averaged 141 segments on crime
across weekdays. The blanket crime coverage matched the
Republican party's efforts to depict violent crime as out of
control, and portray Democrats as responsible.
In the week of the midterms, however, once voting was over,
Fox News aired just 71 segments on violent crime, Media
Matters reported.
``I think this shows pretty clearly that the amount of Fox
coverage of violent crime doesn't really have anything to do
with the level of violent crime in America--it has to do with
the political benefits,'' said Matt Gertz, a senior fellow at
Media Matters.
``It crescendoed right before election day, and then once
the election was over, so was America's crime crisis no
longer the subject of maximum concern that it had been in the
previous weeks.''
Media Matters noted that Fox News crime coverage had
increased somewhat in recent days after the shooting at the
University of Virginia and the student killings in Idaho, but
said ``the coverage was notably less focused on painting
Democratic cities as crime-infested''.
Fox News declined to comment.
Gertz said Tucker Carlson, Fox News' most-watched host, had
a big part to play in the coverage--and in how Republicans
across the country used crime as an issue. In a monologue in
August, Carlson advised Republican politicians to focus their
campaigns on ``law and order'', which he said would result in
a ``red wave'' in the midterms.
Republicans did just that, spending millions on ads which
highlighted instances of violent crime and portrayed
Democrats, like John Fetterman, running for US Senate in
Pennsylvania, as responsible. The Washington Post reported
that Republicans spent nearly $50m on ads focused on crime
between 5 September and 25 October, far outspending Democrats
on the issue.
The network's focus on a singular issue in the lead-up to
an election is nothing new, Gertz said. He said ahead of the
2014 midterm elections the Ebola outbreak became a repeated
issue on Fox News, with the network blaming Barack Obama for
the spread of the virus.
In 2016 Hillary Clinton's emails became the hot topic,
while in 2018 Fox News picked up on a so-called ``migrant
caravan'', using it to bolster Donald Trump's midterm
election sell that the country needed to elect more
Republicans to enact tougher immigration laws.
``It's a play that they've run over and over again in
elections over the past decade,'' Gertz said.
``Fox does this every time they come up with some sort of
message that they want to push, and they try to get
Republicans to adopt it, and they try to get the mainstream
press to adopt it as well,'' he added.
``And so the question becomes: to what extent is the
mainstream press going to take the bait and turn it into a
multiplier effect--where they are repeating Fox's message and
the debate in the final days of the elections is turning on
whatever Fox wanted to talk about?''
It seems this time neither the mainstream media nor voters
took the bait.
Carlson's ``red wave'' failed to materialize in the midterm
vote, as Republican candidates largely underperformed
expectations.
Fetterman, the target of repeated attacks by Fox News and
numerous crime ads from his opponent, Mehmet Oz, won his race
by almost 5%, and while having been predicted to make
significant gains in Congress, Republicans only narrowly took
control of the House, and Democrats retained the Senate.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, so after a frenzy of coverage about
violent crime in September and October 2022, the conservative media
giant FOX News actually decreased coverage of violent crime stories by
50 percent in the weeks following the 2022 elections.
Crime stories have long been used by Republicans to fearmonger for
cheap, electoral victories, and it seems like this old tactic is being
utilized, once again, in 2024, all while 80 percent of Republicans
support cutting the COPS grant program.
Madam Speaker, I urge my friends who don't believe me to go to the
Republican Study Committee FY 2025 Budget proposal--this is the most
recent one--and go to page 148. You will see under the heading, Reduce
Funding for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), it is my
Republican friends--for all the talk about defunding the police--that
are leading the way because there in their Republican Study Committee,
which is the largest caucus in the Republican Conference, they have put
out a report highlighting their budget priorities, which talks about
eliminating the COPS program. You can't make this stuff up.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I think it is important that we don't forget all the other
legislation in this bill, as we have had a spirited debate today about
law enforcement.
It is really important to remind my colleagues today about the
situation in Israel and the Israel legislation that is being considered
this week. We need to talk about how this conflict began. On October 7,
it was Hamas and not Israel that launched a horrifying terror attack
that took thousands of lives and innocent people hostage.
It was Hamas terrorists who murdered approximately 1,200 people,
including Holocaust survivors, the elderly, babies, and beautiful young
people attending a music festival. It is Hamas who, to this day, has
over 100 innocent people held hostage, including American citizens who
we cannot forget are being held hostage. Americans are currently being
held hostage in Gaza.
Hamas is responsible for this war. Hamas, a terrorist organization,
has for decades now used civilian structures and innocent people to
shield their terrorist operations. However, Madam Speaker, none of that
stopped anti-Israel protesters from taking to the streets just a day
after the horrific attacks and the butchery of Israeli civilians to
chant ``from the river to the sea.''
There are some people that serve in this building that take their
time and like to chant ``from the river to the sea,'' and they need to
be held accountable for that, which we know is synonymous language for
the extermination of the Jewish people in Israel.
Madam Speaker, by holding these arms shipments, President Biden is
just not flouting the will of Congress and the American people, but he
is also kowtowing to the radical left that, frankly, has embraced the
anti-Israel movement wholeheartedly. It has become practically a
platform plank over there.
We are learning more and more about the leftwing groups and donors
that are bankrolling the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic protests that have
erupted across the country. We noted that it is the far left, including
Members of the House, that have fully endorsed this message to turn
against our ally Israel in their hour of need and to isolate them and
to ultimately support their destruction.
Madam Speaker, I am done hearing the false equivalencies of a morally
bankrupt movement. Anyone who remembers the true reason why Israel is
defending itself today should support the legislation under this rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I am unable to rebut all the nonsense I just heard,
and I am exhausted by this debate. Let me touch on two things. First,
we haven't heard a single word from our colleagues across the aisle
acknowledging the very real challenges civilians in Gaza are
experiencing every day under this war. We have not heard a single word.
If we send massive 2,000-pound bombs to Netanyahu without any
assurances on how they will be used, it could mean unprecedented,
catastrophic civilian casualties. I mean, these are people that we are
talking about, innocent people--boys and girls, brothers and sisters,
moms and dads, grandparents, babies.
Where is our humanity? Where is our humanity? These are people who
are already struggling with shortages of food, water, shelter, medical
supplies, the basic things that humans need to survive. They fled to
Rafah because that is where Netanyahu told them to go to escape the
bombing of Hamas. Now, Netanyahu is saying he is going to bomb them
anyway, and there is no plan to safely evacuate them to any other
place.
I don't care whether there is another country that does it. Killing
civilians is wrong. It is always wrong. You can be a friend of Israel,
a strong ally of Israel, and also be a critic when it comes to the
Netanyahu government.
You can be a strong friend of Israel and say that more massive
civilian casualties will undercut Israel's security. This is not the
way to go.
[[Page H3227]]
You can feel as I do that what happened on October 7, the horrific
attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians. It was unconscionable. There
aren't enough adjectives to describe how horrific that was.
The taking of hostages is a war crime. We want them released. You can
feel that way, but also understand that we have an obligation to
protect civilian lives in Gaza.
I am grateful to President Biden for taking the step that he did, and
I wish he would do more, quite frankly. It is disappointing for me to
see that so many of my friends across the aisle seem indifferent to it.
Madam Speaker, coming down here to get lectured about crime from the
party whose leader is a criminal is really something else.
My friend from New York not once rebutted our contention that
Republicans have advocated cutting the COPS grant because it is here in
print. Anybody can see it.
For those who want to know why this program is good, it is because it
provides money to help local law enforcement be able to hire and
recruit police officers, especially in areas where budgets are tight.
It is a lifeline for so many communities, rural and urban, all
throughout this country, and they are advocating eliminating it. Give
me a break.
None of the measures the House of Representatives are putting forth
this week do a single thing to protect Americans, secure our
communities, or improve law enforcement.
Madam Speaker, the real shame here is that if Republicans were
willing to set their partisanship aside and work across the aisle,
maybe we could get something substantive done because the reality is
that Democrats want to keep people safe, and we know how to do it.
{time} 1315
We need to invest in programs that get at the root causes of crime,
and we need to address gun violence in our schools and make sure police
aren't put in situations that they aren't trained to handle. We know
the key to improving safety in our neighborhoods is not to use our law
enforcement officers like political pawns.
At the end of the day, the Republican commitment to chaos, extremism,
and politicking over legislating is hurting our ability to improve
people's lives. I have to be honest: I think it is going to backfire on
them.
Even one of our Republican colleagues took to the floor and said as
much last year: ``Nothing but empty promises.'' He went to say: ``We
haven't done anything,'' meaning Republicans. ``One thing. I want my
Republican colleagues to give me one thing--one--that I can go campaign
on and say we did--one--anybody sitting in the complex, if you want to
come down to the floor and come explain to me one material, meaningful,
significant thing the Republican majority has done.''
That is a Republican saying that. They know they are getting nowhere
in this Congress.
All I can say, Madam Speaker, is the American people deserve better,
and they certainly deserve better than the Speaker of the House
spending his time trying to influence our justice system at a
courthouse in New York City. How pathetic. When we have real problems
that we need to deal with here in this country, he is in New York
trying to explain away, like a staffer, all of Donald Trump's problems,
quite frankly.
I am trying to think of a way to stay within order here with the new
rules. It is pathetic. It is pathetic. That is where the Speaker of the
House is spending his time, trying to rationalize all of the former
President's crimes. Give me a break.
Madam Speaker, the American people, as I said, deserve better. I urge
a strong ``no'' vote on this rule. This is just a waste of time. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I wish my colleague from Massachusetts well with his Trump derangement
syndrome.
Madam Speaker, the rule before us today is about standing up for the
safety and well-being of our neighborhoods, our families, and our way
of life. It is about standing up for what is right and defending those
who risk their lives every single day to keep our communities safe.
In my own district in the southern tier of New York, a Chemung County
Sheriff's investigator, Michael Theetge, was critically injured when he
was hit by a shoplifter's getaway car and has since been fighting to
recover. Our prayers and wishes for a speedy recovery are with him and
our whole community.
Sadly, Investigator Theetge's case is not an isolated incident. It is
emblematic of the dangers to law enforcement officers and what they
face every time they put on their uniforms.
In my own State of New York, we have lost some of our very finest
recently. We have recently laid to rest Lieutenant Michael Hoosock of
the Onondaga County Sheriff's Department, Syracuse Police Officer
Michael Jensen, and NYPD Officer Jonathan Diller.
We don't want other families to have to go through what their
families are facing right now and to be able to expect that their loved
ones will come home at the end of their shifts safe and sound.
What is happening in America's major cities in too many States and
right here in our Nation's Capital is simply unacceptable, and it needs
to be addressed now and is with this legislation before us.
This rule, Madam Speaker, is also about standing up for our closest
friends and allies. Since October 7, Israel has been in a struggle for
self-defense against a terrorist organization that seeks nothing but
violence, destruction, and extermination of the Jewish people.
Israel needs the tools to defend itself and defeat Hamas. We need to
send a message to the world that America will not falter in our
commitment to our allies. We need to send these munitions to Israel
now. Our future and their future depend on it.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 1227 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 9. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 715) to require a background check for every
firearm sale. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any amendment thereto, to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) 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) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 715.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.
____________________