[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 15, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3236-H3239]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




IMPROVING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY AND WELLNESS THROUGH DATA ACT 
                                OF 2024

  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1227, I call up 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, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Higgins of Louisiana). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 1227, the bill is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 7581

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Law Enforcement 
     Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act of 2024''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) There has been a rise in anti-police rhetoric and a 
     corresponding rise in violence against law enforcement 
     officers.
       (2) In 2022, a total of 60 police officers were feloniously 
     killed in the line of duty.
       (3) Nearly 30 percent of police officer killings in 2022 
     were caused by unprovoked attacks or ambushes on officers.
       (4) Law enforcement officers bravely put themselves at risk 
     for the betterment of society.
       (5) A data collection that represents the full 
     circumstances surrounding violent attacks and ambush attacks 
     on law enforcement officers is vital for the provision of 
     needed Federal resources to Federal, State, and local law 
     enforcement officers.
       (6) Police suffer assaults and other offenses that do not 
     rise to the level of Law Enforcement Officers Killed and 
     Assaulted or National Incident-Based Reporting System 
     reporting due to the frequency of such incidents, lower risk 
     to officers, and minimal administrative resources to report 
     such frequent events.
       (7) The mental health of law enforcement officers has 
     suffered due to overwork, recruitment issues, and the general 
     stress of their work.
       (8) The people of the United States will always remember 
     the victims of these hateful attacks against law enforcement 
     officers and stand in solidarity with individuals affected by 
     these senseless tragedies and incidents of hate that have 
     affected law enforcement communities and their families.
       (9) The United States must demonstrate to its brave law 
     enforcement officers that they are important, valued, and 
     respected.
       (10) Congress has made a commitment to helping communities 
     protect the lives of their police officers, as evidenced by 
     the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program 
     Reauthorization Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-155; 130 Stat. 
     389) and other laws.
       (11) Subsection (c) of the Uniform Federal Crime Reporting 
     Act of 1988 (34 U.S.C. 41303(c)) requires the Attorney 
     General to ``acquire, collect, classify, and preserve 
     national data on Federal criminal offenses as part of the 
     Uniform Crime Reports'' and requires all Federal departments 
     and agencies that investigate criminal activity to ``report 
     details about crime within their respective jurisdiction to 
     the Attorney General in a uniform matter and on a form 
     prescribed by the Attorney General''.

     SEC. 3. ATTACKS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS REPORTING 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 
     Director of the National Institute of Justice, and the 
     Director of the Criminal Justice Information Services 
     Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a 
     report that includes--
       (1) the number of offenders that intentionally target law 
     enforcement officers because of their status as law 
     enforcement officers;
       (2) the number of incidents reported to the Law Enforcement 
     Officers Killed and Assaulted Data Collection that occur 
     through the coordinated actions of 2 or more parties;
       (3) a description of the Federal response to ambushes and 
     violent attacks on Federal law enforcement officers;
       (4) a detailed survey of what State and local responses are 
     to ambushes and violent attacks on State and local law 
     enforcement officers;
       (5) recommendations for improving State, local, and Federal 
     responses to ambushes and violent attacks on law enforcement 
     officers;
       (6) a detailed survey of Federal and State-based training 
     programs that law enforcement officers receive in preparation 
     for violent attacks, including ambush attacks;
       (7) an analysis of the effectiveness of the programs 
     described in paragraph (6) in preparing law enforcement 
     officers for violent attacks, including ambush attacks;
       (8) recommendations on how to improve State, local, and 
     Federal training programs for law enforcement officers 
     relating to ambush attacks;
       (9) an analysis of, with respect to the Patrick Leahy 
     Bulletproof Vest Partnership under part Y of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 
     10530 et seq.)--
       (A) the efficacy of the Partnership in distributing 
     protective gear to law enforcement officers across the United 
     States, including any location-specific limitations to the 
     distribution under such Partnership; and
       (B) the general limitations of the Partnership, including 
     any location-specific limitations to the distributions under 
     the Partnership, considering the fact that law enforcement 
     officers are suffering from ambush attacks;
       (10) an analysis of the ability of the Department of 
     Justice to combine the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and 
     Assaulted Data Collection and a 09C Justifiable Homicide 
     report for officer-involved shooting reports and any 
     roadblocks to producing a clear report with such information;
       (11) an analysis of the ability of the Criminal Justice 
     Information Services of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     to expand data collection to include a suspect offender's 
     level of injury at the time of a reported Law Enforcement 
     Officers Killed and Assaulted Data Collection incident;
       (12) an analysis of the existence and extent of, and 
     reasons for, disparities in the availability and reporting of 
     data between--
       (A) data relating to ambush attacks against law enforcement 
     officers; and
       (B) other types of violent crime data; and
       (13) an analysis of any additional legislative tools or 
     authorities that may be helpful or necessary to assist in 
     deterring ambush attacks against law enforcement officers.
       (b) Development.--In developing the report required under 
     subsection (a), the Attorney General, the Director of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of the National 
     Institute of Justice, and the Director of the Criminal 
     Justice Information Services Division of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation, shall consult relevant stakeholders, 
     including--
       (1) Federal, State, Tribal, and local law enforcement 
     agencies; and
       (2) nongovernmental organizations, international 
     organizations, academies, or other entities.

     SEC. 4. AGGRESSION AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS REPORTING 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
     the Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall 
     submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
     the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report on--
       (1) an analysis of the ability to implement a new category 
     in the Uniform Crime Reporting System and the National 
     Incident-Based Reporting System on aggressive actions, 
     conduct, or other trauma-inducing incidents against law 
     enforcement officers that, as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act, are not reported in such systems;
       (2) the level of detail the category described in paragraph 
     (1) would include and the standard of evidence that would be 
     used for any reported incidents;
       (3) an analysis of how to engage State and local law 
     enforcement agencies in reporting the data described in 
     paragraph (1), despite the fact that such data is beyond the 
     standard crime-based reporting to the systems described in 
     paragraph (1);
       (4) an analysis of potential uses by the Department of 
     Justice and any component agencies of the Department of 
     Justice of the data described in paragraph (1);
       (5) an analysis of the existence and extent of, and reasons 
     for, disparities in the availability and reporting of data 
     between--
       (A) data relating to aggressive actions or other trauma-
     inducing incidents against law enforcement officers that do 
     not rise to the level of crimes; and
       (B) other types of violent crime data; and
       (6) an analysis of additional legislative tools or 
     authorities that may be helpful or necessary to assist in 
     deterring aggressive actions, conduct, or other trauma-
     inducing incidents against law enforcement officers.
       (b) Development.--In developing the report under subsection 
     (a), the Attorney General, the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation, and the Director of the National Institute 
     of Justice shall consult relevant stakeholders, including--
       (1) Federal, State, Tribal, and local law enforcement 
     agencies; and
       (2) nongovernmental organizations, international 
     organizations, academies, or other entities.

     SEC. 5. MENTAL HEALTH AND WELLNESS REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
     the Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall 
     submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
     the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report on--
       (1) the types, frequency, and severity of mental health and 
     stress-related responses of law enforcement officers to 
     aggressive actions or other trauma-inducing incidents against 
     law enforcement officers;
       (2) mental health and stress-related resources or programs 
     that are available to law enforcement officers at the 
     Federal, State, and local levels, especially peer-to-peer 
     programs;

[[Page H3237]]

       (3) the extent to which law enforcement officers use the 
     resources or programs described in paragraph (2);
       (4) the availability of, or need for, mental health 
     screening within Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     agencies; and
       (5) additional legislative tools or authorities that may be 
     helpful or necessary to assist in assessing, monitoring, and 
     improving the mental health and wellness of Federal, State, 
     and local law enforcement officers.
       (b) Development.--In developing the report required under 
     subsection (a), the Attorney General, the Director of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the 
     National Institute of Justice shall consult relevant 
     stakeholders, including--
       (1) Federal, State, Tribal and local law enforcement 
     agencies; and
       (2) nongovernmental organizations, international 
     organizations, academies, or other entities.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop) and the gentlewoman 
from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 7581.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to be the lead sponsor of H.R. 7581, 
the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data 
Act, and I rise in support of it.
  The bill would refine and expand the gathering and analysis of data 
about attacks on law enforcement officers across the country, our 
current-day scourge. Its sponsorship is bipartisan and bicameral. I am 
grateful for the leadership in the Senate of Senators Grassley, Tillis, 
and others, and the support of 25 bipartisan cosponsors in the House.
  The justification, Mr. Speaker, is obvious. Just yesterday, the FBI 
forecast the release of its annual report on officers assaulted and 
feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2023, reporting that ``from 
2021 to 2023, more officers were feloniously killed (194) than in any 
other consecutive 3-year period in the past 20 years,'' and 2024 is on 
track to be the worst year of any, other than 2021, because a repeat 
criminal who should have been in jail gunned down four heroes in 
Charlotte 2 weeks ago and injured five others. Criminals killed 10 cops 
nationwide in April alone. Until the full 2023 report is released, the 
latest data is that over 66,000 officers were assaulted in 2022.
  This bill will deepen the available dataset in three ways: Reporting 
on the intentionality of targeting law enforcement officers because of 
their status as sworn officers; tracking aggression and trauma-inducing 
incidents that do not rise to crime; and cataloging the availability to 
officers of mental health resources to deal with the attacks they 
suffer.
  One would expect unanimous support, and yet in the Judiciary 
Committee, Democrats amazingly sought to gut and replace the entire 
bill with the same old antipolice legislation to impair qualified 
immunity for police officers, create a national registry of police 
misconduct, and require implicit bias training, and so forth.
  If reacting to unprecedented killings and assaults of cops by 
intimidating and undermining cops sounds backwards and astonishing to 
you, watch the vote on this bill.

                              {time}  1515

  The truth is that the strong impulse and desire among Democrats to 
demonize and delegitimize police remain powerful and just under the 
surface, even as many of them deny they ever uttered the words 
``defund'' and ``abolish'' during the 2020 summer of love, which 
spawned mass riots and increased attacks and killings of not only 
police officers but also those most in need of their protection.
  Especially here in Washington, D.C., the effects of this most 
irresponsible rhetoric in the history of American politics have been 
catastrophic.
  Crime remains out of control, especially among juveniles, carjackings 
and assaults on Congressmen, a 20-year murder record.
  Congress has disapproved with Joe Biden's signature the D.C. 
Council's radical rewrite of the District's criminal law that 
eliminated mandatory minimums and cut maximum sentences for most 
crimes.
  Two D.C. Council members face recall efforts by citizens beset by 
violent crime, and the Metropolitan Police Department has lost almost 
600 of its 4,000-member force and almost every month loses more than it 
hires.
  Yet, some Democrats will vote against this little bill to collect 
more information about attacks on officers.
  It must be considered under a rule because it might not get the two-
thirds majority required to pass on suspension as many such little 
bills do.
  Here, to my right, are the searing consequences of this unforgivable 
political division--the human cost of the worst attack on law 
enforcement since 2026.
  Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department Officer Joshua Eyer, North 
Carolina Corrections Officers Sam Poloche and Alden Elliott, and Thomas 
Weeks, Jr., United States Deputy Marshal, all lost their lives on April 
29.
  I have been to their funerals. I have seen and heard from their 
families. May their names long endure in our memory.
  One could list the other lives taken from us longer ago but just as 
strong in our memories: Jonathan Diller, NYPD officer shot and killed 
in March during a traffic stop, leaving behind a wife and a 1-year-old 
son; Philip Dale Nix, Greensboro police sergeant killed at a Sheetz gas 
station interdicting criminals who wanted to steal mass quantities of 
beer the night before New Year's Eve; Ned Byrd, Wake County, North 
Carolina, sheriff's deputy, ambushed and shot to death by illegals in 
2022; Ryan Hendrix, Henderson County, North Carolina deputy, lost his 
life in a shoot-out with a hardened criminal wanted in multiple states; 
David Dorn, a 77-year-old retired police captain, fatally shot 
interrupting a burglary in St. Louis during the George Floyd riots in 
2020; and far, far too many others to name in the time allowed. Is it 
time yet to come around?
  The former New York City Police Commissioner, Bill Bratton, said 
about that place: Don't hold your breath. The State and the city 
council have been captured by the progressive left, and it is unlikely 
that the voters are going to take them out of office anytime soon.
  Let's prove that the same cannot be said of Congress one way or the 
other. Support our men and women in blue--the American people certainly 
do, the overwhelming majority of them.
  Let's pass this little bill and develop the information necessary so 
that we can protect the officers who serve us, who risk their lives 
every day.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle just mischaracterized the 
Democratic amendment that was offered during committee, and I think if 
he went back and looked at the record, he would see that.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation purports to improve law enforcement 
officer safety and wellness. It seeks to do this by requiring the 
Attorney General and other Federal officials to issue reports about 
attacks on officers, aggression against officers, and officer mental 
health.
  While this legislation may seem on the surface to be meaningful, let 
us be really clear: It is just more cheap talk from Republicans.
  Absolutely nothing in this bill makes a single police officer safer 
or invests a single dollar in officer wellness.
  While the collection of accurate data, including data on officer 
attacks and mental health is important, this bill is unlikely to 
provide any new or meaningful data.
  By necessity, data about incidents of violence against law 
enforcement officers must already be initially collected and reported, 
if at all, by Tribal, State, and local authorities who are in the best 
position to know about these incidents, not the Attorney General.
  The Federal Government collects this data through participation by

[[Page H3238]]

these authorities in voluntary data reporting programs like the 
National Incident-Based Reporting System and the Law Enforcement 
Officers Killed and Assaulted data collection.
  Nothing in this bill provides any resources for more agencies to 
participate in these data collection programs, nor does it mandate any 
kind of reporting.
  Given that there is nothing in this bill to improve the underlying 
data that is available to the Attorney General and others, it is 
unlikely that the reporting required by the bill would be able to 
deliver any new insights that might actually improve officer safety.
  Democrats sought to solve this basic problem of inadequate data 
collection through the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
  Under that bill, States would be required to report shootings, 
deaths, and other uses of force involving law enforcement officers, and 
States would receive grants to facilitate that reporting.
  By both mandating and supporting data collection and reporting, the 
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would significantly improve the 
data available to the Congress, Federal agencies, and the public.
  Critically, unlike this legislation, that bill would require 
reporting of uses of force both by and against law enforcement, 
enabling us to have a full understanding of the dangers faced by 
officers, as well as the injuries and deaths of civilians that are 
caused by police.

  In focusing only on attacks against officers, this bill turns a blind 
eye to uses of force by law enforcement against civilians, whether it 
is justified or not.
  The mental health reporting provisions of the bill are also unlikely 
to improve officer wellness because they fail to build on the work of 
past Congresses and the Biden administration.
  In the 115th Congress, we passed the Law Enforcement Mental Health 
and Wellness Act, a bipartisan bill signed into law by President Obama, 
which directed the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, and the DOJ's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
to report on mental health practices and services that could be adopted 
by law enforcement and the programs already available to them.
  It also expanded the availability of grant funds for law enforcement 
mental health and developed new educational resources.
  Building on this work, President Biden issued a 2022 executive order 
on advancing effective, accountable policing and criminal justice 
practices to enhance public trust and public safety.
  The executive order required the Attorney General to develop and 
publish a report on best practices to address law enforcement officer 
wellness and to make recommendations regarding the prevention of death 
by suicide of law enforcement officers.
  The Attorney General has already complied with this executive order, 
so we already know much more about the mental health resources and the 
needs of law enforcement.
  Rather than retread our steps, we should be moving forward to help 
our law enforcement officers implement this important work so that more 
officers can access the support that they need.
  Last Congress, under Democratic control, the House passed numerous 
bipartisan bills that improved law enforcement officer safety and 
wellness like Protecting America's First Responders Act, the Public 
Safety Officer Support Act, the Confidentiality Opportunities for Peer 
Support, or COPS Counseling Act, and the Law Enforcement De-Escalation 
Training Act.
  At least seven bipartisan law enforcement bills, many led by 
Republicans, have been passed by the Democrat-led Senate.
  These are bills that would help law enforcement and are priorities 
for the police groups, but, so far, House Republicans have only 
advanced one of them.
  This legislation represents another wasted opportunity to work 
together on substantive proposals that will make our communities and 
the law enforcement officers that protect them safer.
  I urge Members to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, as the comments to the 
gentlewoman from Washington developed, it became clear.
  She said at first I mischaracterized what occurred in the Judiciary 
Committee, and then it became clear that I didn't mischaracterize 
anything.
  What they offered to do was to, again, take this bill, which provides 
for additional data collection about attacks on law enforcement 
officers, to take the entire text of the bill and to gut it and replace 
it with, yes, indeed, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is the 
name, and that is the bill that I described as having attempted to 
impair officer qualified immunity, to require training on implicit 
bias, and to establish a database to impugn officers nationwide.
  That is the bill that was a very top priority of Democrats when they 
were in the majority. It passed on the floor under their majority rule, 
and it went on to the Senate where it didn't advance, for good reason, 
because the last thing America needs--again, as demonstrated by the 
events in Washington, D.C., the last thing America needs is police 
officers to be brushed back from their jobs and to be intimidated from 
doing the very tough work of criminal law enforcement by legislation 
that antagonizes, demeans, and delegitimizes them. That is the last 
thing they need.
  Here we are. It is remarkable. Is this the only reporting bill that 
has ever come up that Democrats find objectionable because of their 
interest in good and efficient government?
  Is it that they are concerned about the possibility that the bill 
might not have excellent impacts or be efficient or advance the game or 
break new ground? What is the harm, after all?
  Here is what the harm is: Democrats cannot abide by even the simplest 
of legislation that recognizes the burdens that are borne every day by 
police officers across this country on our behalf; that they are being 
subjected to greater and greater incidents and risk of attacks on their 
persons and of their deaths in the line of duty by people who intend to 
do them harm, and that there may be gaps in terms of the resources that 
are available to them to deal with the difficulties they confront.
  The response that you need to do the George Floyd Justice in Policing 
Act in lieu of this reporting bill is absurd. It is gaslighting in the 
highest degree.
  This little reporting bill, there is just nothing to it, and, yet, 
for some reason, it sticks in the craw of the minority just to say to 
police officers: We are going to extend further efforts, further 
minimal efforts to learn the information that we need to find out, to 
see just how big this problem is and whether you are being afforded the 
opportunity to deal with it in your personal lives as it wreaks havoc 
on you.
  Joshua Eyer, Sam Poloche, Alden Elliott, Thomas Weeks, Jr.: One of 
the worst attacks on law enforcement ever.
  Shouldn't we go and find out what we need to know for their benefit? 
Is that not an appropriate way, that little bill? Would that not be an 
appropriate way to honor their memory?
  Is the concern with efficiency and breaking new ground so profound 
that you have to replace the bill to find out information about the 
assaults on them with the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act that was 
rejected last Congress? It is simply astonishing, and Americans aren't 
going to tolerate it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
will now control the time.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, let me speak more directly 
to the circumstances in Washington, D.C., and what has transpired as a 
consequence of exactly the kind of policing bill represented by the 
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which the minority proposed in 
the Judiciary Committee to gut and replace this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, do you know why our 
Democratic colleagues oppose this report? Do you know why, Madam 
Speaker? They don't want clear, fresh, precise data provided to the 
American people on how many attacks uniformed law officers suffer every 
year.
  They don't want America to know, Madam Speaker, because America

[[Page H3239]]

would be shocked. It is vastly underreported by rank-and-file officers 
like me and my brothers and sisters from sea to shining sea, men who 
know what it is not just to wear a little pin like here and walk around 
D.C. with your head held high, but to wear a shield, to wear a badge, 
to earn that certification every year. We know what it is to be 
constantly under threat of attack and physical attack, but we carry on.
  We rarely report what we don't absolutely have to because of the 
agenda-driven persecution that officers are currently facing. Where? In 
Republican-run cities with Republican district attorneys that actually 
prosecute criminals? No, Madam Speaker. In liberal cities.
  Look at the maps. It is in cities run by Democratic policies and the 
agendas of the Democratic mayors and Democratic DAs. Those are the 
cities that are eaten alive by crime in America. This is why you cannot 
fill the ranks of law enforcement officers across the country.
  When I was a cop, we had about 800,000 uniformed officers. We were on 
our way to a million. We are down to about 600,000 now. Your officers 
are leaving service not because of the threats that we have 
historically faced but because of the threats that we continue to face 
for physical danger on the streets and the very significant 
possibility, even probability in some municipalities, that the actions 
of that law enforcement officer are going to be treated more harshly 
than the criminal and violent attacks that the officer both faces and 
protects his community from.
  To think that my colleagues across the aisle would oppose a bill that 
mandates the Department of Justice provide accurate data to the 
American people about how many violent attacks uniformed officers face 
across the country, my God, you can barely get your head wrapped around 
that.
  Of course, this body that is supposed to represent we the people 
should endeavor to provide the American people with accurate, 
contemporary data regarding such things.
  Madam Speaker, I am honored to support my colleague's bill, and I 
encourage Representatives on both sides of the aisle to join us in 
support of this legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I think it bears repeating, in light of that 
extraordinary commentary, that right here in the District of Columbia, 
to the affliction of 700,000, roughly, local citizens and the 19 
million who visit annually, exactly the kind of radical politicization 
that would say this reporting bill is beyond the pale and that you have 
to have the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. That is exactly what 
they did in D.C. That is exactly what they have done to lead to 
citizen-led recall petitions on two D.C. councilmembers, what they have 
done to see carjackings explode in ways that no one ever thought 
possible, to have a 20-year record of homicides last year, and to have 
one D.C. councilmember still touting that he managed, because of the 
budget politics, to take millions and millions out of the D.C. 
Metropolitan Police Department so that their force has declined from 
4,000 by 600 or more and continues to decline 3 years into the 
phenomenon.
  How far will ideology go to take us beyond common sense to a point we 
can't recover? Let's do a little reporting bill and find out the 
details. Let's get a rich dataset about this scourge that we see across 
the Nation precipitated and encouraged by those who still cannot bring 
themselves to say that law enforcement officers are a needed quantity, 
that the Nation must have them, that law and order must prevail in 
order for the country to succeed.
  How could we have come to a point in the country where that cannot be 
conceded readily by everyone in the political spectrum? I do not know. 
I do not understand, but that is where we are.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is more cheap talk from Republicans. Nothing 
in this bill makes a single officer safer or invests a single dollar in 
officer wellness.
  This legislation falls far short of the George Floyd Justice in 
Policing Act, which would invest in better data collection and 
reporting by requiring law enforcement agencies to report uses of force 
by or against law enforcement officers as a condition of the receipt of 
certain grants.
  House Republicans are, again, refusing to work with police and the 
organizations that represent the police to pass meaningful legislation. 
This legislation is a missed opportunity. It calls for a report that 
duplicates existing reporting requirements.
  It falls far short of meaningful progress in officer safety, and it 
represents an enormous step backward from the legislation offered by 
the Democratic majority in the 117th Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation so 
that we can work together on bipartisan legislation that will really 
enhance the safety of our officers and our communities.

  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, cheap talk. That is what 
the gentleman from New York just said: cheap talk. Madam Speaker, there 
is nothing cheap about it. Behold the price.
  That is why when this body, when this Republican House, undertook to 
disapprove the D.C. crime bill that would have radically rewritten 
criminal law in the District of Columbia, this body disapproved it with 
the support of over 30 Democrats. That is why Chuck Schumer and the 
Democratic majority in the Senate joined in disapproving that radical 
rewrite of the criminal law in the District of Columbia. That is why 
Joe Biden signed the law to disapprove the radical rewrite of the 
criminal law in D.C.
  What is cheap talk is the concern that this would produce a duplicate 
report. That is the objection, that the report might be duplicative? 
Really?
  I would take duplicative reports from here to kingdom come if there 
is the slightest chance that it will avoid this unspeakable price. 
Everybody in the Chamber should support the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of West Virginia). All time for 
debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1227, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________