[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 86 (Friday, May 17, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3334-H3341]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 0915
RESOLUTION REGARDING VIOLENCE AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1227, I call up
the resolution (H. Res. 1213), a resolution regarding violence against
law enforcement officers, and ask for its immediate consideration in
the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Guest). Pursuant to House Resolution
1227, the resolution is considered read.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 1213
Whereas, beginning in 2020, and in conjunction with the
``defund the police'' movement, respect for the rule of law
and law enforcement officials diminished;
Whereas this change in attitude has resulted in record
death and injury to America's law enforcement officers at the
Federal, State, local, and Tribal level;
Whereas policies implemented at several State and local
jurisdictions have increased the difficulty and added
significant risks for law enforcement to do their jobs
effectively and safely;
Whereas law enforcement is demanded to handle societal
problems, including a nationwide mental health crisis,
record-setting overdose poisonings due to fentanyl, and an
increase in the homeless population;
Whereas the lack of accountability for violent criminals
with decreased penalties and no-bail policies has opened the
door for record criminal activity in cities across the
country;
Whereas these policies have encouraged the public to
aggressively and violently engage with law enforcement;
Whereas law enforcement officers answer every service call,
regardless of community support or ridicule;
[[Page H3335]]
Whereas law enforcement officers answer every service call,
regardless of the threat to their lives;
Whereas there are currently 23,785 names of law enforcement
officers killed in the line of duty inscribed on the National
Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, DC;
Whereas the deadliest year on record for law enforcement
was 2021, when 586 law enforcement officers were killed in
the line of duty;
Whereas, in 2022, 224 law enforcement officers were killed
in the line of duty;
Whereas, in 2023, 137 law enforcement officers were killed
in the line of duty;
Whereas 378 law enforcement officers were shot in the line
of duty in 2023, the highest year on record, of which 115
were violent ambush attacks;
Whereas the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund
anticipates adding at least 151 names to the sacred walls in
the spring of 2024, representing the current and historical
deaths which, to date, have been approved as line-of-duty
deaths;
Whereas the average fallen law enforcement officer is 45
years old;
Whereas the average fallen law enforcement officer has 15
years of service;
Whereas the average fallen law enforcement officer leaves
behind 2 children; and
Whereas current data does not show how many law enforcement
officers are assaulted, injured, or disabled in the line of
duty each year: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) condemns calls to defund the police, which has
increased violence towards law enforcement officers;
(2) recognizes that law enforcement officers must have the
equipment, training, and resources necessary to protect the
health and safety of the public as well as their fellow law
enforcement officers on the job;
(3) recognizes the need for better data collection on law
enforcement officers who are assaulted, injured, or disabled
in the line of duty;
(4) acknowledges its responsibility for exemplifying a
respect for the rule of law and for the law enforcement
officers who protect communities across the Nation;
(5) acknowledges the mental stress and strain law
enforcement officers suffer not only due to the pressures and
realities of the job, but also the negative environment in
which they often must work;
(6) acknowledges the need to strengthen its relationship
with law enforcement to ensure policy decisions are aligned
with the realities law enforcement officers face daily; and
(7) expresses condolences and solemn appreciation to the
loved ones of each law enforcement officer who has made the
ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution 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 Virginia (Mr. Cline) and the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ivey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
General Leave
Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome so many fine men and women
in blue here in our Nation's Capital for Police Week.
However, as always, I am concerned every day for the safety and well-
being of these brave men and women in the communities across this great
Nation where they live and work. Radical policies in States and cities
across the country continue to promote a disastrous rise in crime and a
dangerous environment for police officers.
Now more than ever, we must show our support for our law enforcement
officers. As a former local prosecutor, I know just how important a
robust police force is to keeping our community safe. For effective
crime deterrence, you need prosecutors willing to pursue convictions
and judges willing to sentence and incarcerate.
First and foremost, you need police willing to arrest and charge
offenders for crimes committed. You need local and State governments
willing to fund and support our police forces.
Let me be clear, this effort to defund the police has had a
detrimental impact on efforts to combat crime but also on recruitment,
retention, and morale among our law enforcement officers.
In Democrat-run cities across the country, areas where they defunded
the police saw a spike in crime and continue to struggle today with
keeping their cities safe. Despite Democrats' calls to defund the
police and the emotional toll that that takes, we know that law
enforcement officers answer every call for help regardless of who the
person is or what they believe and regardless of the threat to their
own lives. So many of those brave men and women who answer the call of
duty put on the uniform and go to work in the morning but never return
home in the evening.
Today, there are 23,785 names of law enforcement officers who have
been killed in the line of duty that are inscribed on the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, D.C. Words can never
express our gratitude to each and every individual whose name is on
that wall.
Unfortunately, we still see warning signs that the environment does
not show any promise of becoming safer. According to the Fraternal
Order of Police, 378 officers were shot in the line of duty in 2023,
the highest number recorded since FOP began collecting the data.
So far in 2024, 136 officers have been shot. That must end. That is
completely unacceptable.
We must take a stand against these attacks and honor our fallen law
enforcement officers. This resolution does just that. This resolution
condemns calls to defund the police. It also recognizes that law
enforcement officers must have the training and resources necessary to
protect the health and safety of the public as well as their fellow law
enforcement officers on the job.
We must never forget those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in
the line of duty. It is up to us in Congress to honor their memories
and to stand up and protect those who do so much to protect us.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, on August 29, 2002, two deputy sheriffs in Prince
George's County, Elizabeth Magruder and James Arnaud, were ambushed in
the home of the shooter's family. They had been called to the house to
execute a warrant, a health warrant, because the parents were concerned
about the erratic behavior of their son.
Elizabeth Magruder was shot in the back of the head, and James Arnaud
was shot and killed, as well. He left behind a wife, two children, and
two grandchildren. She left behind a husband and a 3-year-old son.
I had just been elected State's attorney in Prince George's County,
but I hadn't even been sworn in yet. One of my first duties was to
attend the funerals for both of them. My first memorial service during
Police Week was in their honor.
Therefore, I take this very seriously. The National Police Week
commemoration, I think, is something that is very grave, and we should
treat it with great respect.
Unfortunately, ambushes like the one Magruder and Arnaud faced that
day haven't ended. We just saw recently the ambush in Charlotte. Four
officers were killed, and eight were shot. We have had others like that
all over the country.
My thought when we had Police Week approaching was that we would
approach this in a bipartisan manner. I actually reached out and worked
with Congressman Hunt from Texas, and we put together a bill that was
aimed at expanding the number of police officers because we know that
there are shortages across the country. We know that we need to
increase the pipeline so that more officers will come and take on these
dangerous tasks and stand in harm's way, or stand in the gap, as the
pastor said this morning.
It was a bipartisan effort. It came out of the committee by voice
vote. It was passed on the floor in a similar capacity. The Senate
companion bill was passed, as well. We are looking forward to that
becoming the law of the land in short order.
Unfortunately, much of the legislation that has come after that has
been anything but bipartisan. The legislation we are speaking to today,
I am afraid, falls into that category.
[[Page H3336]]
When I took a look at the resolution, H. Res. 1213, I had hoped to
see praise go out to our officers across the country for the work that
they do and for the officers who have lost their lives in the line of
duty. Indeed, there are paragraphs that speak to that. Unfortunately,
there are passages that don't.
My colleague from Virginia and his comments a few moments ago made
some of the same kinds of comments, with respect to, for example, the
defund the police argument. My Republican colleagues have concluded
that ``defund the police,'' a phrase that was used several years ago,
is somehow fueling the rise of crime and, in this particular instance,
the death and attacks against police officers.
As I just went into a moment ago, Magruder and Arnaud were killed in
2002, over 20 years ago. We know we have been seeing deaths of officers
in the line of duty for decades now. It is nothing new. To kind of
casually blame it on a slogan that I am not aware of anybody in the
body here today who espoused that--certainly, I didn't--to pretend that
that is the reason these shootings or these killings are occurring, is,
I think, unfortunate and an abuse of what this week is supposed to
mean.
Now, in addition, I would say this: I just mentioned that I don't
know that anybody supports the defund the police slogan from a few
years ago, but we do have colleagues in the House right now, a House
Republican, who has a bill, H.R. 374, to defund ATF, and we have House
Republican colleagues who called for the defunding of the FBI.
The irony of that, as those of us who have worked in law enforcement
know--I was a prosecutor for 12 years, 4 on the Federal level, 8 as the
locally elected State's attorney--the local and Federal prosecutors
work together all the time. It is critical. Sometimes they work
together in task forces because they can bring the local, the State,
and the Federal forces to bear and provide maximum support in
protecting our communities.
Unfortunately, this piece of legislation and much of the legislation
that has been discussed this week that has been offered by my
Republican colleagues intentionally ignores Federal law enforcement. In
fact, we had one that was marked up in my committee, the Judiciary
Committee, where I offered an amendment to include Federal law
enforcement. It was expressly rejected on a party-line vote by my
Republican colleagues.
I have to say that the FBI, ATF, and Border Patrol put their lives on
the line, too. We should respect them, as well. One of the reasons I
can't support this legislation is that it really is disrespectful to
those Federal officers.
The other is that, back to the defund police issue, there is a
recognition in the legislation where it talks about the number of
officers who died in the line of duty in 2021, 2022, and 2023. I can
talk about the specific numbers in a moment when we move forward in the
debate, but one provision actually notes that 378 law enforcement
officers were shot in the line of duty in 2023. The one common thread
between the vast majority of officers who have been killed in the line
of duty, like Arnaud and Magruder, like the people who were ambushed in
Charlotte, like most of the people with the names on the wall just a
few blocks away from here, is they were shot.
Sadly, my Republican colleagues are unable, unwilling, un-something
to take a step to address that gun violence. The resolution here speaks
in terms of defunding the police as the cause of their deaths, but all
of us know that the greatest threat that these officers face is not
being stabbed to death. It is not being beaten to death with a slogan
like defund the police. It is being shot to death.
Briefly, these are numbers from the cops working with the National
Fraternal Order of Police. A total of 331 law enforcement officers were
shot in the line of duty during calendar year 2022 in 267 separate
shooting incidents, including 42 incidents where multiple officers were
shot.
I appreciate the fact that we are going to offer resolutions to
praise officers, but if we are really serious about protecting them, it
is hard to ignore a data point like that. Yet, our officers have to go
out there knowing that they face these threats all the time. Traffic
stops are particularly dangerous, but sometimes, like for Arnaud and
Magruder, officers can be ambushed in a home. Sometimes, like in
Charlotte, they can be ambushed in the open air.
Taking that seriously, I think, is an important piece, yet the
resolution doesn't even mention it.
I will say this, and then I will take a pause here for a moment, but
there is legislation pending right now in the House of Representatives.
I offered one, an assault weapons ban. I figured it might be a bridge
too far for me to ask my Republican colleagues to cosponsor that, so I
came up with a bill. It is called the Raise the Age Act, and it would
elevate the age from 18 to 21 to purchase assault weapons.
I thought that would be a reasonable bill to offer because there was
already a provision in the law for handguns. You had to be 21 to
purchase a handgun. I believe that was put in place during the Reagan
era.
For my bill, raising it to 21, since you have to be 21 to buy
alcohol, I thought it might make sense to be 21 to buy an assault
weapon, as well.
I think we have 171-plus cosponsors for that bill, but none of them
are Republican, not one, even though Republicans had agreed to
legislation similar to that in previous years.
{time} 0930
I will speak to you in a moment about the resources issue, as well.
In the 117th Congress, Democrats supported legislation to provide
equipment to police officers. We will get into the particular numbers
of that in a moment, but none of that is moving forward here in the
House now, and none of it is certainly moving forward in Police Week.
I want to point out one little factoid from the COPS document that I
mentioned before. It is under the heading Bullet Resistant Vests:
At least 34 officers were protected from gunshots that
struck a protective ballistic vest.
Yet, we are struggling to find a way to provide additional support
and equipment for officers to help them stay safe on the street. That
is what we ought to be doing during Police Week, and to the extent we
are going to talk in terms of resolutions in support of officers, let's
strip out the political nonsense. The defund the police stuff really
has no place in helping to protect police officers and make them safe.
As I mentioned a moment ago, it is a slap in the face the way these
legislative provisions have been proposed to always exclude Federal law
enforcement. I know you guys have issues on the other side about some
of them, but I think this isn't the time or the place to express it in
that way. Federal law enforcement deserves the same kind of respect,
the same kind of appreciation, the same kind of protection that local
and State law enforcement officers do.
I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. We have
had other resolutions that have come through before, and we have urged
them to oppose them, as well. I am going to urge my colleagues on the
other side after this vote is over--and you are in the majority, so you
can move this kind of stuff whether it really makes a difference or
not. Hopefully, after we get past this moment, we can actually sit down
and get back to the type of legislation that I worked on with
Congressman Hunt that can really make a difference to help make police
officers safer, to help get more police officers on the street, and to
praise all of them for the great work that they do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I agree with him that we
should stand in support of all of our law enforcement officers at the
local, State, and Federal level. In addition to the work that we have
done together on bills affecting law enforcement in the Judiciary
Committee, I am also honored to serve on the Commerce, Justice,
Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of Appropriations where we
deal specifically with support for Federal law enforcement, as well as
programs for State and local law enforcement. I can commit to the
gentleman that the appropriations process under Chairman Cole's
leadership will be focusing on providing that support for law
enforcement across the country
[[Page H3337]]
at all levels. I encourage him to keep a close watch on those bills as
they move through, and hopefully we can get his support for those
pieces of legislation that provide that funding.
We have the loss of officers in every community, and during National
Police Week we pause to thank those brave men and women in blue, and in
rural areas like mine wearing brown uniforms, as well as sheriff's
deputies, and we remember those who were lost.
We have had loss in the Sixth Congressional District. In Bridgewater,
recently we had officers who we lost, and it really does take a toll
not just on the families of the victims but on the entire community.
We want to make sure that that number is reduced, eliminated, and we
can do that not only through funding efforts to support our police but
also through resolutions like this where we try and reverse the trend
that we have seen across the country and in many Democrat-run cities,
quite frankly, where the antagonistic attitude toward men and women in
law enforcement has reached a fever pitch. We have to turn that around.
We have to restore that respect for law enforcement in our communities,
that confidence in law enforcement in our communities through efforts
like this, but also through efforts on the ground.
Nothing can replace support for law enforcement among city councils,
among elected officials at the local level, among teachers, among
community members. That is what is going to be, ultimately, the driving
force behind the reversal in this antipolice, defund-the-police-type
attitude in our communities and the restoration of that respect and a
reduction in crime that would follow. If you respect the police,
hopefully it follows logically that you are not going to be someone who
wants to cross the police by violating the laws.
We will continue to push legislation like this and legislation that
we work on in a bipartisan manner. I am sorry the gentleman says he
can't support this resolution, but I hope that we continue to work on
these types of bills as we move forward.
As to the issue of gun violence, I would say that efforts to raise
the age at which adults in this country can exercise their
constitutional rights to defend their homes, defend their families,
defend their communities are not the answer. We only need to look in
the District of Columbia to see what has happened when the age at which
juvenile crimes, the age for covering crimes and determining that they
are juveniles, has been raised over the years and is now 25. If you are
under 25 years old in the District of Columbia and you commit a crime,
you can be considered a juvenile for purposes of sentencing and for
purposes of punishment. That doesn't make sense.
We passed a bill this week that actually lowers that age from 24 down
to 18 because, truly, if you commit a crime and you are a juvenile--and
I worked in juvenile courts, so I understand that there needs to be
different approaches to punishing juveniles. They need a much more
restorative process that brings them back to a point at which they will
be law-abiding adults. Once they are adults, once they are 18, treating
them as juveniles without any kind of punishment for the crimes that
are committed really does nothing but encourage that type of illegal
behavior once they reach adulthood.
We don't think that raising age and pretending someone who is an
adult is not an adult and can't exercise all of the rights enshrined to
them under the Constitution is appropriate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), a great law enforcement officer.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I am frustrated and angry but also deeply
saddened. The law enforcement profession is an honorable one. To have
so much compassion for others that you are willing to put your life on
the line, it is, as we say, a call to service, and not many hear that
call today.
If you had asked me a few years ago if my children should become law
enforcement officers, I would have undoubtedly said yes. However, after
these last few years of observing the treatment of our law enforcement
officers, I would have to think twice about my answer.
Since 2020, I have watched the law enforcement profession become a
punching bag, scapegoated by rabid media pundits more interested in
clickbait than the facts, villainized by Hollywood, and disparaged by
city councils, Members of this Congress, both men and women, and even
our President.
Yet, all these people expect law enforcement to respond to their
calls for service. They expect them to take the verbal assault and show
up with a smile on their face ready to serve.
The wonderful thing about my brothers and sisters in uniform is that
despite this treatment and abuse, they will show up. They will answer
every call. They will sacrifice their safety for others. They will help
protect their community no matter how much ridicule or resentment they
face.
I am here to say the things that they can't. I am here to protect my
brothers and sisters in the blue and brown because others won't.
Enough is enough.
Law enforcement officers deserve our respect, our admiration, and our
support. To provide anything else is unacceptable.
The resolution before us acknowledges the change in attitude toward
law enforcement over the last few years and the subsequent violence
directed toward them. It acknowledges that they respond to calls for
service no matter who is on the other line.
It acknowledges that the job has only become more dangerous and more
mentally and physically exhausting, yet they still show up for work,
not knowing if they have kissed their families good-bye for the last
time.
Importantly, this resolution also acknowledges that we in this
Chamber set the standard. We are the ones who must demonstrate a
respect for the rule of law and a respect for our law enforcement
officers if we are to expect the public to do the same. We must do so
in our actions, in our conversations, and even the policies we
consider.
Bills that never become law can have the most staggering ripple
effect. They can persuade local municipalities to implement soft-on-
crime policies and strip law enforcement of resources. They can
encourage the public to cheat, steal, and disrespect fellow community
members. They can cause good, noble people to change their minds about
entering the profession that I love so much, which is law enforcement.
Actions have consequences, and our communities are suffering as a
result.
Let's take this moment to learn, to change for the better. We can
rise to the moment, stand with our law enforcement officers,
reestablish law and order, and bring safety back to our communities.
I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to respond to my good
friend and colleague who is managing the time on the other side of the
aisle. He talked about his support for law enforcement and what he did.
I want to read something to you: ``It is not enough to hold the
officers involved accountable. In the past year, police killings have
reached a record high. Rogue, militant policing continues to run
rampant across our country, threatening public safety and the lives of
millions of Americans.
``Our antiquated criminal justice system has long allowed law
enforcement to utilize excessive force and prejudicial policing
practices while avoiding accountability. We need extensive reform now
with de-escalation training, selective bias training, and better
policing. I am urging my colleagues in Congress to pass the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
``Additionally, we must invest in our communities through unarmed
first responder agencies, mental health and crisis support treatment
options, diversion programs, community intervention groups, and re-
entry programs. We can and must do better to avoid tragedies and
improve public safety. I will never stop working to support and enact
changes that will make our country safer for all Americans.''
The first part, this whole quote that I read was from my colleague
who is managing the time on the other side of the aisle. That is
horrendous because the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act takes away
qualified immunity. If you take away qualified immunity
[[Page H3338]]
from the American law enforcement officer, it will devastate our
communities. It will devastate recruitment, retention, and morale.
{time} 0945
You have to be kidding me.
Mr. Speaker, this is what we are dealing with.
I became a law enforcement officer in late 1994 when Ron Ryan and Tim
Jones from the St. Paul Police Department were ambushed and killed. I
was a young officer. I didn't even have my funeral uniform yet, but I
went to those funerals wondering what profession I was getting in, even
taking a second thought whether I should stay in the profession. I was
1 week on the job.
In Cottage Grove, Minnesota, I was working the night shift. My
partner and I that night, Tom Uland, stopped at a gas station to have a
cup of coffee on the midnight shift. We talked about our families. We
split up. He went one way, and I went the other. Within 3 minutes he is
screaming for help. He needed help on a traffic stop. I couldn't get
there fast enough. When my squad car got on that scene, the whole
engine was shaking. I couldn't get to him fast enough.
He was being attacked by the driver and a dog, and the female
passenger was crying. We found out when Officer Uland went to make that
traffic stop the driver said to the female passenger: I am going to
kill him.
When Officer Uland went up to the window, the suspect was digging
into his armrest trying to get a handgun, and the female passenger was
trying to move it away from him to save the officer's life. I got there
during the struggle. Five minutes before that, he and I were having a
cup of coffee and talking about our families and our futures. That is
how quickly it can change.
The cavalier attitude of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
is unconscionable. Where were they during the summer of love, 2020,
when officers were getting ambushed? Where were they, Mr. Speaker?
On December 15, 1995, at 10:32 p.m., at the intersection of Sixth
Avenue East and Fourth Street, Duluth, Minnesota, a career criminal
tried to shoot me in the head and kill me, and I survived by the grace
of God. He was a career criminal who should have been put away years
ago.
Don't tell me we don't have issues.
We have issues with prosecution, too. The Federal prosecutor in
Minneapolis would not charge him with felon in possession of a handgun.
We couldn't figure out why. An off-duty police officer was shot in the
head by a career criminal who should never have had the gun, and he
wouldn't prosecute.
It was about 8 years later when the drug task force supervisor woke
me up in the middle of the night and called me.
He said: Pete, we got him. He is going to prison for a long time. We
have got the stolen guns on him. He is not getting away with this one.
It took him years after to put this guy away.
Then on London Road in Duluth, Minnesota, suspects tried to kidnap
some folks. I get the call with my supervisor. I don't get to choose
what call I go on. I don't get to say: I don't want to go on this gun
call. I don't want to go on that.
I get the call, and I go, and every single police officer in this
Nation does the same thing.
It is a kidnapping, suspect with a gun. I go, I clear the room, Mr.
Speaker, and the suspect comes flying in the room, points a handgun
right at me, and pulls the trigger. By the grace of God, it didn't go
off.
Do you know why I knew it didn't go off?
It happened so fast; I saw it in his eyes. I was in a street fight
for my life; and, yes, I needed some help after that call. That is why
I am adamant that the professionals who serve our communities get the
mental health they need, and they need it now sometimes.
To listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pretend
they support law enforcement, they have never worn the boots, or many
of them have never worn the boots. They have never answered a call: Two
shot, officer needs help. Most of them have never had a suspect with a
rifle in his hand ready to kill you.
I have to make a decision, Mr. Speaker. If that rifle comes up, then
I have to save my life. I have to do that. I don't want to, but his
actions are causing me to save my own life and the lives of others.
Mr. Speaker, the honorable men and women in law enforcement in
America deserve better treatment. This week we celebrated Law
Enforcement Week, Police Week. We saw the men and women in uniform, the
proud men and women in uniform, come to our Nation's Capital and be
proud of their profession.
This week, Law Enforcement Week, should be 52 weeks a year. Every
week we should support law enforcement and protect law enforcement. I
am sick and tired of seeing this happen to law enforcement men and
women, Mr. Speaker, throughout this Nation. There are Members in this
body who stand at a microphone and vilify law enforcement. They will go
to their funerals though. They will go to their funerals.
When it comes to supporting the legislation that I have here, a
resolution regarding violence against law enforcement, my colleague
says that it is partisan.
You have to be kidding me.
This is a resolution regarding violence against law enforcement
officers, and my good friend calls it partisan.
Yes, defund the police was real. We are seeing the effects of it
today. The recruitment and retention morale are at the lowest ever.
There are shortages, Mr. Speaker, in police departments across this
Nation, including my hometown.
Do they want to sit up here during National Police Week and pretend?
No. We are not going to have it. You are either going to support law
enforcement or you don't.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?
Most departments today wear body cameras or have squad car cameras,
in-squad cameras. In this Nation, cooler heads must prevail on the
support for law enforcement. We have to understand what they go
through. We must push: comply now, challenge later. Comply now,
challenge later.
Mr. Speaker, in 23 years of law enforcement, when I placed somebody
under arrest: Please put your hands behind your back. You are under
arrest. Palms out. Don't resist. Do you understand?
I placed my handcuffs on them, gapped them, and double-locked them,
escorted them to the right rear seat of my squad car. When they obeyed
my lawful order, Mr. Speaker, I didn't get hurt, the suspects didn't
get hurt, and the public didn't get hurt.
When a law enforcement gives you a lawful order, obey her. Obey a
lawful order. When a law enforcement officer says: Put your hands on
the steering wheel, then put your hands on the steering wheel.
When a law enforcement officer says: Sit on the sidewalk for safety
purposes, then sit on the sidewalk.
When a law enforcement officer says: You are under arrest for
domestic assault, obey a lawful order, Mr. Speaker.
As a society, where do we want to be? Judge, juror, and executioner
on the streets of the United States of America?
It is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, we have to change, and it is up to leadership in our
Nation's Capital and elected leaders at all levels in every State.
To the men and women who wear the uniform in this great Nation: I
will tell you it is a noble, honorable profession. No matter what you
hear from some folks that you are not wanted, it is unwarranted, it is
not a good career, I will tell you: I spent 23 years as a police
officer in the city of Duluth, Minnesota. I helped build a community
policing program. I love the profession, and I enjoyed the profession.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the darkest hours of someone's life we deal
with, and we deal with it with compassion and professionalism. It is
not easy, but we need the good men and women.
Mr. Speaker, we also need to hold people who perform violent acts
against innocent citizens accountable. We need prosecutors to hold them
accountable when they perform a violent crime.
In closing, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we in this country had
better reshape our thinking and our focus toward safety of all of us,
and we do that by supporting the men and women in uniform. We do that
by electing leaders at all levels of government who support law
enforcement.
[[Page H3339]]
We in law enforcement want to be held accountable, but let me tell
you something, Mr. Speaker. Right now we have a rogue attorney general
in Hennepin County, Minnesota, who is bringing murder charges against
Minnesota Trooper Ryan Londregan for what he did to save his partner's
life, and the use of force expert opined to that, that Trooper
Londregan used lawful force to save his partner's life. He is now being
charged in Hennepin County by an anti-law enforcement attorney general.
In fact, she can't even find an attorney in her own department, Mr.
Speaker, to prosecute the case. She is spending over $1 million of
taxpayer money, Mr. Speaker, to come to this town and find a
prosecutor. It is unbelievable.
The people of Minnesota and Hennepin County should understand what is
happening to that good man, that good trooper and his family. I will
stand up to the good men in law enforcement no matter what I have to
do, no matter what I have to do.
Mr. Speaker, I will say this: If we don't have a change of attitude
toward law enforcement, then this country is going to be in trouble.
Before I close, I want to ask--this is an ask to the American people,
to every American: The next time you see a law enforcement officer, I
want you to look her in her eye and tell her: Thank you for your
service. We appreciate you.
She will take that response and carry it with her the rest of the
day, the rest of her shift, and forever.
We need to show appreciation.
Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I have got to say that I am deeply shocked and
offended by the statements that were just made, especially regarding
me, but the larger context, too.
The gentleman from Minnesota read a quote that he attributed to me,
and it is a statement I made, but it was about the killing of Tyre
Nichols.
Tyre Nichols was the gentleman in Tennessee who was beaten to death
over a period of 10 to 15 minutes by I believe it was six police
officers. In fact, I remember watching the video, and there were
multiple videos because they had different angles. One of the officers
who had been beating him got tired and stepped away so he could catch
his breath and then came back to continue beating him.
I had never seen anything like it. I was shocked.
{time} 1000
I had cases when I was the State's attorney where police officers
used excessive force, and I prosecuted those cases. In some cases, we
convicted those individuals.
I guess my colleague from Minnesota thought that the beating death of
Mr. Nichols was good policing, but keep something in mind. The chief of
the police of that department fired those officers because he
recognized that that had crossed the line that good police officers
recognize and follow every day, under every circumstance, and in every
situation.
I thought that is what we were going to honor this Police Week. To
sort of hold up the Tyre Nichols scenario as an example of what police
officers are supposed to be doing during Police Week is insane. I can't
believe it, but that is what the gentleman did.
Let me say this. It is important for us to make sure that we walk and
chew gum at the same time. We want to honor good policing, for sure,
because every community needs it. We need police officers who go out
and respond to calls for robberies, shootings, or whatever. We need
detectives who respond in homicide and rape prosecutions and
investigations at the local, State, and Federal levels. We definitely
need it, but even they have recognized over time that the bad apples,
and the ones in Tyre Nichols' case were clearly not just bad apples but
about as bad as you can get, have to be separated out because it is
important for the police to police themselves. I know it is hard, but
we have to make sure that they do it.
The gentleman mentioned body cameras a moment ago. Guess why we have
body cameras. That was one of the innovations that was made to address
excessive force. Guess what. One of the things that has led to is
better policing.
When I first ran for State's attorney in Prince George's County, one
of the issues I ran on was videotaping interrogations, and I wrote an
op-ed. It was titled ``Safeguards for the Innocent.'' I was joined by
the former head of the homicide unit here in Washington, D.C. We wrote
it together.
The reason we wrote it was because we knew that if these
investigations were videotaped, it would address the flurry of false
confessions that had been made in Prince George's County. We knew they
were false because they were proven to be innocent by DNA evidence. We
knew they were false confessions, so we made this change to try to
address that.
Guess what happened. Initially, the police officers opposed it, but
the good detectives realized quickly that the videotapes showed the
great work that they were doing and that they were going about it the
right way. The juries appreciated that, too, because then we could just
bring it in, set up the video, play the tape, and the jurors could see
for themselves and make their decision. That is good policing.
I think it is important for us to make sure that we hold police
officers, just like we do prosecutors or any other law enforcement
profession, to a basic level of following the law even as they try to
protect us from misconduct.
I guess this is kind of par for the course now for my Republican
colleagues. On the January 6 piece, for example, we have colleagues on
the other side of the aisle who are calling the perpetrators of January
6, the rioters of January 6, hostages and patriots. The majority is
calling the people who participated in it patriots, the ones who had
been prosecuted, convicted, and jailed. Even though I think over 900 of
them pled guilty, others were convicted after jury trials.
They have had their day in court. They have had their due process.
They were rightly convicted and held accountable. They have been
sentenced to jail, but we still have my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle calling them patriots and hostages, even though five officers
died as a result of January 6 and many others were injured, too.
Mr. Speaker, this is Police Week, and I am hoping that we can get
back to trying to do things in a bipartisan way here, but based on what
I heard from my colleague from Minnesota, that is not likely to happen.
It is important to make sure that we do this: We have to make sure
that we recognize the challenges we face in law enforcement. I support
law enforcement, as I mentioned earlier. We have legislation to try to
increase the number of police officers who are going to be out there on
the street because we need more police officers on the street. The
George Floyd Act, which was referenced, I think, a minute ago, is aimed
at making sure that, in addition to having more on the street, they do
the job in the right way.
When I first got elected, we didn't have iPhones very often. We would
prosecute these cases and present the evidence to the jury in excessive
force cases, and many times, the jury would reject it.
One of the transformations that happened with the iPhone, though, was
that people, standing there on the street while excessive force was
taking place, videotaped it, and then they were able to bring that to
the police. Additionally, cases that probably wouldn't have been
charged previously were not only charged but led to convictions.
The George Floyd scenario, the person who that legislation is named
after, is a paradigm example. Derek Chauvin was there with his knee on
George Floyd's neck for 9\1/2\ minutes. The police report that Derek
Chauvin and his other colleagues on the street filled out made no
mention of all of that, but the videos made it clear that Derek Chauvin
had basically just strangled him to death with his knee. He was held
accountable, and the other officers around him, who basically did
nothing while it was happening, were held accountable, too.
Maybe my colleague from Minnesota had that in mind when he made some
of the statements he just said a few minutes ago. I sure hope not
because officers who do that belong in jail. They shouldn't have a
badge, a gun, and a license to kill. That has to be given to the people
we can trust to enforce the law in the right way.
[[Page H3340]]
For the vast majority of police officers, that is how they do it, and
that is why we appreciate and respect them. When they cross the line, I
hope we don't have people like the gentleman from Minnesota act like
that is okay because it is not. We have to hold them accountable.
A minute ago, I mentioned serious legislation. It is a little
surprising to me that we are having such a debate like this over
legislation that is just a resolution basically. It speaks only of
defund the police and the like.
The Democrats in the last Congress, for example, passed meaningful
reforms to support police even though, in many instances, they were
opposed by Republicans. Last Police Week, we passed H.R. 6943, the
Public Safety Officer Support Act, which extended death benefits to law
enforcement officers with PTSD. It happened over the objection of 17
Republicans, including 4 on the Judiciary Committee.
Last Police Week, H.R. 2992, the Traumatic Brain Injury and Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder Law Enforcement Training Act, passed, as
well. Twenty-one Republicans objected to that also.
We keep passing legislation, or we did when the Democrats were in
control, to actually provide additional resources and benefits to
police officers who get injured in the line of duty. I think that is
important for us to continue to do, but our colleagues aren't doing it.
Republicans are bringing this political legislation, and it got
really political a minute ago when the gentleman from Minnesota was up
there, frankly, kind of ranting about things he attributed to me, which
I think was wrong and incorrect, but, more importantly, things the
gentleman keeps trying to attribute to Democrats and the change in
policy.
Mr. Speaker, here are a couple of other quick points about some of
the things my colleague said, like the decline in police officers. I
have to be clear. One of the things we have in the bill I cosponsored
with Mr. Hunt was a report that is going to study this because I think
it is going to help address a lot of the misinformation that is coming
out on the other side about why we are having some shortages.
They are saying it is based on the defund the police slogan, but the
roots of these shortages started many years ago. In some instances, in
some jurisdictions, we just have a cycle of people who are coming up
for their retirements at their 20-year and 30-year marks. In any event,
let's try to make sure we get the evidence and the data so we can
correct those challenges.
It is not just fixing a slogan on the street. It is a dangerous job.
It doesn't pay as much as it should. Many of the officers or potential
officers find that they can have jobs that pay as much but don't have
to work as hard. For example, in a Homeland Security Committee hearing,
I remember the Border Patrol agents testifying that they are having
trouble retaining officers at the border, not because of a defund the
police slogan but because they can leave the job and make more money
doing other things and stay in the same community, and it is less
taxing than being an officer.
If we are honest about it, we can come up with better solutions to
try to retain them, like maybe paying them more money, but if we keep
spreading rhetoric about this is defund the police, we won't fix the
problem and get more officers.
If money is the issue, and of course it is a factor, then just
standing here and haranguing about defunding the police doesn't fix it.
We have to find ways to raise the salaries and help attract and retain
more of them to go out on the street.
I am going to stop with this, for the moment. I first went into law
enforcement in 1990 as a prosecutor, and I took it seriously then.
The gentleman on the other side is accusing Democrats of not being
serious about police. We have former police officers here on this side
of the aisle who are Democrats, and I know them across the country. Not
only that but every time I have run for office, I have been endorsed by
the FOP in my jurisdiction. It is a little unfortunate to sort of use
those sorts of attacks to justify the resolution that is proposed here.
Let's get serious. Let's get back to doing things that actually will
address the problems and retain more police officers, recruit more
police officers, and address the concerns that we have with respect to
keeping safe on the street.
Yes, gun violence is a big factor in the dangers that they face on
the streets. I think it is kind of hard to be serious about protecting
them if we are not even going to discuss that.
My colleague from Virginia mentioned that he thinks we want to make
sure that they are 21 because if you wait until they are 21, it
undermines their Second Amendment rights. I appreciate that, but I
don't agree with that take.
Let me say this: Ghost guns, I haven't come across anybody who thinks
those make sense. They are intentionally designed to avoid prosecution.
They don't have any numbers on them in order to avoid being tracked in
the event of use for a criminal enterprise. The use of ghost guns in
crimes on the street is exploding.
We need to get our Republican colleagues to help us support
legislation like that. We are having trouble finding it, but today
would be the day.
By the way, talking about killings on the street, it is handguns
primarily, as I just mentioned a few minutes ago, that are leading to
officers' deaths on the streets. If we are really serious about
protecting police officers, can't we do something to try to address
that? Can't we do something to try to limit the number of guns on the
street?
Also, I know that the argument is going to be Democrats are soft on
crime and all of that, but remember, a lot of the people who commit
these crimes don't have prior offenses. The guy who killed the two
deputies in my jurisdiction, Arnaud and Magruder, didn't have any prior
record. He had mental health issues.
We can't just assume that all of these issues revolve around people
who have long criminal records because they don't, and many times
police officers are killed on the street by people with no prior
records.
Let's try to address all of these issues in a serious way, in a
bipartisan way, because that is the way to actually help keep our
police officers safe on the street.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 1 minute
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
{time} 1015
Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, no Member of Congress questions the
difficulty, danger, or stress associated with serving in law
enforcement. We are grateful for each and every Federal, State, local,
and Tribal law enforcement officer, agent, or employee working daily,
putting their lives on the line to keep us safe in every corner and
territory of this Nation.
This week we should come together to honor their dedication to their
jobs and communities, lift up the names of those officers and agents
who gave their lives in service, and wrap our arms around their loved
ones left behind.
Sadly, Republicans have chosen partisanship over bipartisanship at
this time. I, therefore, must oppose H. Res. 1213, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, we should all come together. We should all be
standing united on this floor in support of law enforcement today.
Unfortunately, it is the other side that is going to object to this
legislation in support of police. To the defund the police movement,
this rhetoric has come from Members in this Chamber on the other side
and, yes, that has been followed up by action in cities across the
country.
We just had a field hearing in Philadelphia where they defunded the
police. They took money away from police departments in Philadelphia.
The gentleman may call the testimony of our colleague from Minnesota,
former law enforcement, ranting, but, instead, I believe it was a
passionate defense of each and every law enforcement officer in this
country. We must stand and back the blue.
[[Page H3341]]
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1213, A
resolution regarding violence against law enforcement officers.
Let me be clear: I am supporting this resolution because our law
enforcement officers deserve better training and equipment, better data
about the injuries they incur in the line of duty, and better resources
to support their mental health and community engagement. Peace officers
who serve their communities faithfully deserve our respect, and I
resoundingly condemn the increase in violence against law enforcement
officers. However, this resolution also inserts unnecessarily divisive
language into what should be a unifying message of support. The claim
that an increase in violence against law enforcement officers is tied
to calls to defund the police is unsupported and irresponsible.
Congress should never use our first responders to force a partisan,
politically charged message. This is especially true during Police
Week, when we reflect on those who have died in the line of duty, and
honor those who put their lives on the line every day to keep our
communities safe.
The work law enforcement does is felt every day, and they deserve
real, tangible support. Genuine support for our law enforcement
officers requires Congress to address the myriad challenges they face.
For example, we must work to stem the proliferation of ghost guns and
assault weapons that make it especially dangerous and difficult for law
enforcement to do their job. Congress must also ensure law enforcement
is equipped to respond to the many calls they receive. I strongly
support federal COPS grants to local law enforcement agencies, which
have provided more than $16 million to Minnesota law enforcement
agencies since 2016, putting more than 100 additional officers in our
communities. Just as strongly, I oppose the Republican Majority's
budget proposals to cut this essential funding. Additionally, support
for mental health professionals to accompany officers in certain
situations is needed. Being a law enforcement officer already entails
so much. They should not be expected to fill dozens of specialized
roles in addition to their primary responsibilities.
During my service in Congress, I have been committed to ensuring that
our law enforcement officers have the resources and support they need
to do their jobs. In my role on the Appropriations Committee, I have
secured more than $8 million in Community Project Funding to directly
support Fourth District law enforcement agencies and programs. I will
continue to work to support Minnesota's first responders and invest in
community safety.
I thank our law enforcement community for the sacrifices they make
every day to keep us safe.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1227, the previous question is ordered
on the resolution and the preamble.
The question is on the adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 337,
nays 61, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 218]
YEAS--337
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Alford
Allen
Allred
Amo
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Auchincloss
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Beatty
Bentz
Bergman
Beyer
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Blunt Rochester
Boebert
Bost
Boyle (PA)
Brecheen
Brown
Brownley
Bucshon
Budzinski
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Caraveo
Carbajal
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Case
Castor (FL)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Ciscomani
Cline
Clyde
Cohen
Cole
Collins
Comer
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davids (KS)
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
Dean (PA)
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Escobar
Espaillat
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flood
Foxx
Frankel, Lois
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallego
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Golden (ME)
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Gottheimer
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harder (CA)
Harris
Harshbarger
Hayes
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Himes
Hinson
Horsford
Houchin
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (NC)
Jackson (TX)
Jacobs
James
Jeffries
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Krishnamoorthi
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Landsman
Langworthy
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Lesko
Letlow
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Lynch
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Manning
Massie
Mast
Matsui
McBath
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCormick
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Murphy
Neguse
Nehls
Newhouse
Nickel
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peltola
Pence
Perez
Perry
Peters
Pettersen
Pfluger
Phillips
Posey
Quigley
Raskin
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Ross
Rouzer
Roy
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rutherford
Ryan
Salazar
Salinas
Sanchez
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Spartz
Stanton
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stevens
Strickland
Strong
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Tenney
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Titus
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wild
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--61
Balint
Barragan
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bowman
Bush
Cardenas
Carson
Casar
Casten
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Crockett
DeGette
Doggett
Eshoo
Foster
Foushee
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Green, Al (TX)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jayapal
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Lee (CA)
Lee (PA)
McClellan
McGarvey
McGovern
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Ramirez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Stansbury
Takano
Tlaib
Underwood
Velazquez
Waters
Watson Coleman
Williams (GA)
NOT VOTING--32
Bera
Bishop (GA)
Buchanan
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Cloud
Clyburn
Davis (IL)
DesJarlais
Evans
Ferguson
Gimenez
Granger
Greene (GA)
Grijalva
Jackson Lee
Kean (NJ)
Kim (NJ)
Kuster
Kustoff
LaHood
Magaziner
McClain
McHenry
Mfume
Miller-Meeks
Mooney
Norcross
Sewell
Trone
Wexton
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1049
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mses. ESCOBAR, BROWNLEY, Messrs. RUPPERSBERGER, AMO, Mrs. DINGELL,
and Mr. PANETTA changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. DesJARLAIS. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent for today's
vote. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 218,
H. Res. 1213.
Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I had to miss votes today to travel back
to Illinois. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call
No. 218.
Mr. BERA. Madam Speaker, I missed one vote today. Had I been present,
I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 218.
____________________