[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.

                          ____________________