Congressional Record, Volume 170 Issue 84 (Wednesday, May 15, 2024)

[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.

[[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.

____________________