[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.

                          ____________________