[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 82 (Thursday, May 15, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H2071-H2077]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMPROVING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY AND WELLNESS THROUGH DATA ACT
Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 405, I call up the
bill (H.R. 2240) to require the Attorney General to develop reports
relating to violent attacks against law enforcement officers, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 2240
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Law Enforcement
Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) There has been a rise in anti-police rhetoric and a
corresponding rise in violence against law enforcement
officers.
(2) In 2022, a total of 60 police officers were feloniously
killed in the line of duty.
(3) Nearly 30 percent of police officer killings in 2022
were caused by unprovoked attacks or ambushes on officers.
(4) Law enforcement officers bravely put themselves at risk
for the betterment of society.
(5) A data collection that represents the full
circumstances surrounding violent attacks and
[[Page H2072]]
ambush attacks on law enforcement officers is vital for the
provision of needed Federal resources to Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officers.
(6) Police suffer assaults and other offenses that do not
rise to the level of Law Enforcement Officers Killed and
Assaulted or National Incident-Based Reporting System
reporting due to the frequency of such incidents, lower risk
to officers, and minimal administrative resources to report
such frequent events.
(7) The mental health of law enforcement officers has
suffered due to overwork, recruitment issues, and the general
stress of their work.
(8) The people of the United States will always remember
the victims of these hateful attacks against law enforcement
officers and stand in solidarity with individuals affected by
these senseless tragedies and incidents of hate that have
affected law enforcement communities and their families.
(9) The United States must demonstrate to its brave law
enforcement officers that they are important, valued, and
respected.
(10) Congress has made a commitment to helping communities
protect the lives of their police officers, as evidenced by
the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program
Reauthorization Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-155; 130 Stat.
389) and other laws.
(11) Subsection (c) of the Uniform Federal Crime Reporting
Act of 1988 (34 U.S.C. 41303(c)) requires the Attorney
General to ``acquire, collect, classify, and preserve
national data on Federal criminal offenses as part of the
Uniform Crime Reports'' and requires all Federal departments
and agencies that investigate criminal activity to ``report
details about crime within their respective jurisdiction to
the Attorney General in a uniform matter and on a form
prescribed by the Attorney General''.
SEC. 3. ATTACKS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS REPORTING
REQUIREMENT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation
with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
Director of the National Institute of Justice, and the
Director of the Criminal Justice Information Services
Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit
to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a
report that includes--
(1) the number of offenders that intentionally target law
enforcement officers because of their status as law
enforcement officers;
(2) the number of incidents reported to the Law Enforcement
Officers Killed and Assaulted Data Collection that occur
through the coordinated actions of 2 or more parties;
(3) a description of the Federal response to ambushes and
violent attacks on Federal law enforcement officers;
(4) a detailed survey of what State and local responses are
to ambushes and violent attacks on State and local law
enforcement officers;
(5) recommendations for improving State, local, and Federal
responses to ambushes and violent attacks on law enforcement
officers;
(6) a detailed survey of Federal and State-based training
programs that law enforcement officers receive in preparation
for violent attacks, including ambush attacks;
(7) an analysis of the effectiveness of the programs
described in paragraph (6) in preparing law enforcement
officers for violent attacks, including ambush attacks;
(8) recommendations on how to improve State, local, and
Federal training programs for law enforcement officers
relating to ambush attacks;
(9) an analysis of, with respect to the Patrick Leahy
Bulletproof Vest Partnership under part Y of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C.
10530 et seq.)--
(A) the efficacy of the Partnership in distributing
protective gear to law enforcement officers across the United
States, including any location-specific limitations to the
distribution under such Partnership; and
(B) the general limitations of the Partnership, including
any location-specific limitations to the distributions under
the Partnership, considering the fact that law enforcement
officers are suffering from ambush attacks;
(10) an analysis of the ability of the Department of
Justice to combine the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and
Assaulted Data Collection and a 09C Justifiable Homicide
report for officer-involved shooting reports and any
roadblocks to producing a clear report with such information;
(11) an analysis of the ability of the Criminal Justice
Information Services of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
to expand data collection to include a suspect offender's
level of injury at the time of a reported Law Enforcement
Officers Killed and Assaulted Data Collection incident;
(12) an analysis of the existence and extent of, and
reasons for, disparities in the availability and reporting of
data between--
(A) data relating to ambush attacks against law enforcement
officers; and
(B) other types of violent crime data; and
(13) an analysis of any additional legislative tools or
authorities that may be helpful or necessary to assist in
deterring ambush attacks against law enforcement officers.
(b) Development.--In developing the report required under
subsection (a), the Attorney General, the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of the National
Institute of Justice, and the Director of the Criminal
Justice Information Services Division of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, shall consult relevant stakeholders,
including--
(1) Federal, State, Tribal, and local law enforcement
agencies; and
(2) nongovernmental organizations, international
organizations, academies, or other entities.
SEC. 4. AGGRESSION AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS REPORTING
REQUIREMENT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation
with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall
submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and
the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives a report on--
(1) an analysis of the ability to implement a new category
in the Uniform Crime Reporting System and the National
Incident-Based Reporting System on aggressive actions,
conduct, or other trauma-inducing incidents against law
enforcement officers that, as of the date of enactment of
this Act, are not reported in such systems;
(2) the level of detail the category described in paragraph
(1) would include and the standard of evidence that would be
used for any reported incidents;
(3) an analysis of how to engage State and local law
enforcement agencies in reporting the data described in
paragraph (1), despite the fact that such data is beyond the
standard crime-based reporting to the systems described in
paragraph (1);
(4) an analysis of potential uses by the Department of
Justice and any component agencies of the Department of
Justice of the data described in paragraph (1);
(5) an analysis of the existence and extent of, and reasons
for, disparities in the availability and reporting of data
between--
(A) data relating to aggressive actions or other trauma-
inducing incidents against law enforcement officers that do
not rise to the level of crimes; and
(B) other types of violent crime data; and
(6) an analysis of additional legislative tools or
authorities that may be helpful or necessary to assist in
deterring aggressive actions, conduct, or other trauma-
inducing incidents against law enforcement officers.
(b) Development.--In developing the report under subsection
(a), the Attorney General, the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and the Director of the National Institute
of Justice shall consult relevant stakeholders, including--
(1) Federal, State, Tribal, and local law enforcement
agencies; and
(2) nongovernmental organizations, international
organizations, academies, or other entities.
SEC. 5. MENTAL HEALTH AND WELLNESS REPORTING REQUIREMENT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation
with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall
submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and
the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives a report on--
(1) the types, frequency, and severity of mental health and
stress-related responses of law enforcement officers to
aggressive actions or other trauma-inducing incidents against
law enforcement officers;
(2) mental health and stress-related resources or programs
that are available to law enforcement officers at the
Federal, State, and local levels, especially peer-to-peer
programs;
(3) the extent to which law enforcement officers use the
resources or programs described in paragraph (2);
(4) the availability of, or need for, mental health
screening within Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies; and
(5) additional legislative tools or authorities that may be
helpful or necessary to assist in assessing, monitoring, and
improving the mental health and wellness of Federal, State,
and local law enforcement officers.
(b) Development.--In developing the report required under
subsection (a), the Attorney General, the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the
National Institute of Justice shall consult relevant
stakeholders, including--
(1) Federal, State, Tribal and local law enforcement
agencies; and
(2) nongovernmental organizations, international
organizations, academies, or other entities.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry) and the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Mrs. McBath) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
General Leave
Mr. FRY. 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 H.R. 2240.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, police officers risk their lives every day to protect
our communities. I extend my sincere gratitude to all law enforcement
officers and their families for their service and sacrifice.
[[Page H2073]]
Unfortunately, law enforcement officers face the continued threat of
unprovoked and ambush-style attacks. The bill before us, the Improving
Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, would
require the Attorney General to develop a series of reports related to
violent attacks on law enforcement officers.
The left's defund the police movement continues to have ripple
effects throughout the country, as violent crime remains high and
criminals have become more brazen in their attacks against police
officers.
In addition, rogue prosecutors and leftwing bail reform policies
continue to allow more criminals on the street with no accountability.
Let me be clear: The threat to officer safety is very real, and we
must take a stand against any defund the police rhetoric.
In 2024, 342 officers were killed in the line of duty, with 79 of
them shot in 61 ambush-style attacks. As of May 1, 2025, 109 officers
have been shot in the line of duty just this year.
This violence against law enforcement is unacceptable and underscores
the importance of this legislation.
While the government collects basic information on these attacks,
such as when the attack occurred and what types of weapons are used,
more information is needed to help law enforcement officers prepare
for, identify, and prevent future anti-police activity.
This legislation would also shed light on the mental health
consequences of the attacks on law enforcement and other trauma law
enforcement deals with on a daily basis. Mental health resources are
another critical need for law enforcement officers, as they continue to
risk their lives every day to keep their communities safe.
We must take care of those who do so much to take care of us.
This legislation is common sense. It will gather more information to
help Congress explore the best possible solutions for our law
enforcement officers.
I would like to mention that 146 of my colleagues across the aisle
voted in favor of this legislation last Congress. It is incredibly
bipartisan.
Let's all work together to stand against attacks on law enforcement
and support our men and women in blue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this crucial
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Improving Law Enforcement
Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act.
Law enforcement officers serve as our lifeline of defense against
danger. With this bill, we have an opportunity to equip the Department
of Justice and Congress with very crucial information to better
understand and enhance officer safety.
Law enforcement officers deserve to return home safely to their
families, knowing their well-being is truly a priority. Federal, State,
local, and Tribal officers face very long hours, immense pressure, and
unpredictable dangers every day. Over time, the constant strain of the
job can take a significant toll on their bodies and minds.
While there are some mental health resources currently available to
our officers, there is still so much more that we can and should be
doing to ensure their wellness and, most definitely, their safety.
By prioritizing data-driven approaches to officer safety and
wellness, we can address systemic risks, reduce preventable tragedies,
and build a stronger, more resilient law enforcement system.
The goal is that the required report will provide us with insight
into the challenges our officers face and help us to understand the
additional support that they need to remain physically and mentally
safe.
Federal law enforcement officers dedicate themselves to protecting
our Nation, to protecting our communities, and it is our responsibility
in this body to ensure that they receive the protection that they
deserve.
{time} 1315
Law enforcement officers face unparalleled risks every day, from
physical violence to psychological traumas. According to the FBI,
assaults against officers remain very, very high, with tens of
thousands of them who are injured annually.
Beyond the line of duty, officers experience higher rates of PTSD,
depression, and suicide compared to the general population. Yet, for
too long, this body, Congress, has not done as much as we should to
tackle these issues that they face.
This bill requires the collection and analysis of critical data on
attacks on officers, injuries that they suffer, their mental health
challenges, and wellness program effectiveness. Without accurate data,
we are fighting blind.
By identifying trends, such as the frequency of attacks on officers
or gaps in mental health support, we can implement targeted solutions
to keep our officers safe and to keep them healthy.
Many officer fatalities and injuries are preventable with better
training, better equipment, and better policies. For example, if data
reveals that a significant number of injuries occurred during traffic
stops, agencies can adopt safer tactics or deploy new technologies. If
certain regions report higher rates of firearm-related fatalities, we
can prioritize resources there.
Officer suicide rates outpace line-of-duty deaths. I will say this
again: Officer suicide rates outpace line-of-duty deaths. Yet, stigma
and inadequate resources prevent many of them from seeking help. This
bill will help us track mental health trends, evaluate the
effectiveness of peer support programs, and expand access to
counseling. Healthy officers are better officers. They are more
effective officers, both for their own well-being and for the
communities that they serve.
When officers are safer, healthier, and better supported, they are
better equipped to serve with professionalism and with empathy. Our
communities benefit when law enforcement agencies are operating using
data to improve practices rather than reacting to crises.
Yet, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness
Through Data Act isn't just about gathering data and reporting
statistics. It is about lives, and it is about public safety. It is
about the officer who returns home safely to their family at night. It
is about the rookie who gets lifesaving training, or the veteran who
receives mental health care instead of suffering in silence.
Mr. Speaker, if we are to realize any of these benefits, this bill
must be the first step that we take and definitely not the last. We
must be prepared to act on the information that we get from these
reports that come from this bill, much of which is already collected by
the DOJ and other agencies. We must be prepared to provide tangible
resources to our law enforcement, which I am sure the reports will
suggest that they need.
As we observe National Police Week and talk about officer safety and
wellness, I would be remiss if I did not call for the immediate
restoration of hundreds of millions of dollars that are affecting
nearly 40 States in public safety grant funding that the Department of
Justice chose to abruptly terminate. Some of that canceled funding went
to law enforcement training; support and other critical resources; and,
more specifically, to addressing the health, safety, and wellness of
law enforcement.
As I have here, President Trump's 2026 budget would have devastating
impacts on public policy by cutting $1 billion across 40 Department of
Justice grant programs which support police departments and reduce
violent crime, hate crime, and crime against women.
Mr. Speaker, $646 million from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA, for violence and terrorism has been terminated. I can go
on and on, but I won't.
These terminations include a grant totaled at over $8 million to the
National Policing Institute, which assisted rural police departments
and district attorneys' offices to pay for violent crime investigators
and programs to combat child sex abuse.
I also feel that it is necessary to mention once again, as the
ranking member has, the plaque that we voted to hang in the Capitol
more than 3 years ago to honor the countless officers who fought--and
they died--to protect the lives of Members of Congress, all of us in
this body. They not only fought to protect Members of Congress but
staffers and other personnel and to save our democracy on January 6,
2021.
[[Page H2074]]
Mr. Speaker, hanging this plaque is the least that we could do to
honor those who have fought and died and given their lives for us, this
body. Hanging this plaque is required by law, a law that was passed. We
passed the law over 3 years ago.
Why is this plaque not up? That is a simple question. Why is this law
being defied? That is a simple question.
Many of those officers have been left feeling ignored and betrayed by
the very same Members of Congress. They stand outside every single day
to protect and watch over us. They feel betrayed.
Many times, they can't even look at us as we walk out the door
because they feel betrayed. They fought to protect us on that day,
January 6, and, yes, we still betray them.
Former U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell recently told our
staff: Trump is treating the rioters like they were the ones defending
the Capitol.
He went on to say of Trump: Calling January 6 ``a day of love,'' if
that was a day of love, ``They almost `loved' me to death.''
If we really intend to support our officers, they should not be
feeling this level of betrayal and disappointment in the government
that they swore to defend and protect. Officers who put their lives on
the line for us deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I will take a point of privilege to say that when I lost
my son, Jordan, in Jacksonville, Florida, on November 23, 2012, at a
convenience store gas station by a man who never should have had a gun,
that convenience store family, the owners, at least had the decency to
put a plaque up in remembrance of my slain son, who was simply stopping
to get some chewing gum as he was going from one mall to the next with
his friends. They at least had the decency, and my son wasn't doing
anything to protect the Nation or protect Members of Congress. Yet and
still, out of dignity and respect for someone who was slain
unnecessarily, they at least had the decency to put up a plaque in
remembrance of my son.
We should no less do that for these folks who stand here every single
day. They would take bullets for us. Let's do the right thing. Why
would we not honor them? We can't say one thing and do another, that we
want to serve and protect them. We want to make their lives better. The
American people are watching us. They are depending on us.
Mr. Speaker, let's do the right thing. Simply just put this plaque
out for all of us, for their service to us and to this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, while I urge my colleagues to support this legislation,
I also urge them to do more than just collect data and request reports
from other officials. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore), my good friend and the
bill's primary sponsor.
Mr. MOORE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2240, the Improving Law
Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, a bill that I
introduced in response to the deeply troubling rise in targeted
violence against our Nation's law enforcement.
Every day, officers across this great Nation put their lives on the
line to keep our communities safe. Far too often, they, in fact, become
the targets of violence simply for wearing the badge. This year alone--
this year alone, again--we are only in May--there have been 109
officers shot in the line of duty, 12 of whom tragically lost their
lives.
Mr. Speaker, even more alarming is there have been 21 ambush-style
attacks on law enforcement officers this year, resulting in 25 officers
shot, 5 of whom were killed. These numbers do not account, though, even
for the many instances where officers were fired upon but, fortunately,
were not struck.
Mr. Speaker, ambush-style attacks are some of the most dangerous.
They are calculated and often deadly, leading to higher rates of both
injuries and fatalities. That is why I introduced this legislation to
ensure that we are doing all that we can at the Federal level to
understand, prevent, and respond to these targeted attacks.
The Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through
Data Act enhances our ability to collect and, more importantly, to
analyze data on violent acts against officers. This will empower
agencies around the country with the information that they need to
strengthen their responses and better protect their personnel.
Importantly, H.R. 2240 also calls for a comprehensive assessment of
availability and use of mental health resources within law enforcement
because protecting those who protect us must include supporting their
mental well-being. We need to make sure that we get away from any shame
that can sometimes happen when a law enforcement officer needs to reach
out for some kind of mental health counseling.
If the Speaker would think about it, these men and women oftentimes
see the worst of folks. They see folks who are in their worst state.
They see the tragedies that hopefully most of us will go through life
and never have to see, and they do it every day, day in and day out,
because it is their job that they have chosen to do to keep us safe.
Mr. Speaker, these officers answer the call, day or night. They don't
have a choice as to what they respond to. They run toward danger to
safeguard our neighborhoods, and far too often, they pay a heavy price.
We owe them more than our gratitude. We owe them action.
Mr. Speaker, I say this: There were a couple of comments about past
events, some which happened before I came here as a new Member. Yet, I
do remember very well the spring of 2020, when we saw many of our
cities burned, looted, and destroyed. Some of them have not yet even
recovered. Instead of law enforcement being supported by some in those
local governments, they were vilified when they were out doing what
they could to try to help. They were told to stand down and allow mobs
to go in and destroy property.
I saw that firsthand, Mr. Speaker, in Raleigh. I literally watched
folks roaming around and destroying windows, burning vehicles,
shooting, all this kind of mayhem. I won't mention names, but I saw
some colleagues on the other side who would kind of give cover and say:
Well, it was understandable. It was a peaceful protest.
It is not a peaceful protest if you are destroying buildings. It is
not a peaceful protest if you are attacking someone. It is not a
peaceful protest if you are burning buildings, burning cars, and
engaging in violent conduct.
Then we saw from that some of this antipolice that came about, the
calls to defund the police. I am glad to see that I don't hear that
very much anymore. I hope that foolish idea never gets raised again in
this great Chamber because if it were not for the men and women in law
enforcement, it would be a society of disorder and random violence. We
owe these men and women all that we can do for them. We owe it to them
to make sure that their jobs are safe.
Mr. Speaker, I think about a situation that happened in Wake County,
North Carolina, in 2022, where a sheriff's deputy was ambushed and
killed by an illegal immigrant. I am not trying to open up the debate
on illegal immigration. Fortunately, this body has taken action, along
with our President, to secure the border and to stop gang members from
coming into this country.
Yet, someone who was in this country who shouldn't have even been
here attacked and ambushed a Wake County deputy and killed him. These
stories happen around the country.
This is one more piece--one more piece--in finally bringing some
sanity, bringing some protection and providing protection for the
American people, to make sure that they are not having to worry about
gang members being allowed into the country, that we are not allowing
illegal immigration to run amuck, and that we are not downing the
police and somehow lifting up the criminals.
The American people were tired of that. They were tired of it. And
guess what? They are getting results. This is one more piece to try to
do this to help these men and women in law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the body's support. I encourage all of the
Members to vote for it.
{time} 1330
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
[[Page H2075]]
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McBath for her
extraordinary leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Improving Law Enforcement Officer
Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, which seeks to improve law
enforcement officer safety and wellness by requiring that the AG and
other Federal officials issue regular reports on attacks on police
officers, aggression against police officers, and on officer mental
health.
I salute Mr. Fry, a freshman to this body, for his stewardship of
this bill. The collection of this information is important and useful,
but the mere passive gathering of data does little or nothing to
actually improve officer effectiveness or public safety.
In fact, none of the bills we have considered from the majority
during this law enforcement week would actually produce any measurable
gains in public safety.
We spent the week voting for bills that will do nothing really but
increase the number of weapons on our streets, our buses, our trains,
our subways, parks, restaurants, and in our schools. That is a strange
way to improve public safety or aid law enforcement in doing their
jobs.
Now, there are things we can actually do to improve public safety.
Mr. Speaker, forgive me. I know Mr. Fry is in his second term, not in
his first term. He is a valuable member of our committee.
Mr. Speaker, the last gentleman to speak said he never wanted to hear
about defunding the police again, and I agree with him completely.
The problem is, he is about to hear about it because DOGE is
defunding the police as we speak and, unfortunately, with your
cooperation and your passivity, they are getting away with it.
Now, this self-anointed fourth branch of government, DOGE, which I
think is getting run out of town right now because of its rank
incompetence and lawless assaults on the privacy data of hundreds of
millions of Americans and its unlawful summary mass firings of
professional civil servants like air traffic controllers, food and drug
inspectors, pediatric cancer researchers in my district, Forest
Service, and firefighters. They are getting run out of town now. I
don't hear a lot about Elon Musk. He has lost some elections for my
friends across the aisle, so they are trying to let him sink into
anonymity, but he has done his damage.
Over at the Department of Justice--and I have got to correct myself.
I was saying that his employee, who I can identify now as Tarak
Makecha, was responsible for slashing more than $500 million in public
safety, local law enforcement, and victim assistance organizations
across the country. Although that was technically correct, more than
$500 million, it really understates the gravity of this offense against
public safety. It was $811 million in grants that were terminated.
Now, understand what a grievous assault this is on our system of
government. Congress passes budgets. They are initiated here in the
House of Representatives. We voted to appropriate that money to the
Department of Justice. The House voted for it. The Senate voted for it.
It was signed into law by the President. The money went to the
Department of Justice. It was programmed for those purposes. $811
million was awarded to each of those grantees and now we have got some
reportage explaining what happened. It all came down to this one guy,
Tarak Makecha, working for Elon Musk.
Did anybody elect him around here? Did anybody confirm him for any
job? I don't think so.
He wrote some memos under the authority of dusk, which now I think is
an invalidated, discredited authority if you read the opinion from the
Federal District Court of Northern California on Friday night because
they remember how the Constitution works.
We don't have a fourth branch of government called Elon Musk or Tarak
Makecha. This guy wrote memos to the deputy attorney general demanding
that all of these grants to law enforcement and public safety and
victim assistance groups across the country in our districts be
deleted. He wouldn't rest until they were deleted. They were deleted so
he said he could report it to his superiors and to the White House.
Now, why aren't we using this valuable time not just to pass a mere
reporting bill, which is fine, but how about an action bill?
How about a bill that restores hundreds of millions of dollars to
actually promoting criminal law enforcement, public safety, aid to
victims of rape and sexual assaults, organizations fighting child
sexual abuse across the country? Why don't we do that?
Why don't we just pierce the fog of rhetoric a little bit and get
down to something that is actually happening?
Then we can follow that up with what I think would be a significant
symbolic statement, as Mrs. McBath urges us to do, let's put up the
plaque to honor the officers who defended us against the rampage of
January 6.
The gentleman from North Carolina, I think, tried to change the
subject as if one mob rampage justifies another. I am against all mob
violence. I am against all mob rampages. I don't feel like I have to
speak out against one of them. If I can't speak out against the one
that comes to our House, who will trust me to speak out against mob
violence anywhere else? I denounce it wherever it takes place, under
whatever guise, under any ideological auspice at all. I denounce mob
violence.
I challenge my friend from North Carolina to find me one Democratic
official who incited violent insurrection or incited mob violence on
that day because I will tell you, this Chamber voted to impeach that
President who incited mob violence against us in a sweeping bipartisan
vote, Democrats and Republicans, together. Then the Senate voted 57-43.
The President, in his inimitable way, was able to beat the
constitutional odds, but nonetheless, commanding majorities of both
Chambers found that he incited violence against us in order to
overthrow a Presidential election he had lost by more than 7 million
votes.
Find me a Democratic Governor who pardoned any of the mobsters or the
violent insurrectionists or people burning down buildings. Can you find
me one? Can you find me any Democratic politician who wants to honor
those people? Can you?
I can show you a United States President today who seems to think
that it was the rioters and insurrectionists who deserve honor and
praise.
Don't give me any false analogy or false comparison. We denounce
violence everywhere.
Will our colleagues have the courage to ask for the plaque honoring
the police officers who opposed the violence that came right into this
Chamber? I can hear them chanting: ``Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike
Pence.''
Remember him? He was the Republican Vice President of the United
States, and they chased him out. Now, they would like his memory to go
down that Orwellian black hole so nobody remembers him or so nobody
remembers the things the Republicans said. They called it terrorism at
the time, but now it is inconvenient.
Donald Trump doesn't want police officers being honored for the work
they did defending our Constitution, our democracy, our Capitol, and
the Members of Congress, including people who sit on that side of the
aisle as well as the Members who sit on this side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Evans of Colorado). Members are reminded
to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Harris).
Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, a little over 1 year ago,
four law enforcement heroes in North Carolina lost their lives
protecting the public from an armed and highly dangerous felon. They
showed up to work that morning like it was just another day. They gave
the ultimate sacrifice for the Charlotte, North Carolina, community.
However, instead of acknowledging the danger that police officers
willingly put themselves in every day and standing behind our men and
women in blue, some radical progressives on the left would rather
defund the police or even abolish them entirely, but not me and not my
colleagues that are here with me today.
This National Police Week, I am honored to stand behind our law
enforcement as they keep our communities safe. I am especially proud to
stand
[[Page H2076]]
today and speak on behalf of H.R. 2240, the Improving Law Enforcement
Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act.
As I read this bill, one disturbing fact caught my eye: In 2022, 30
percent of the murders of police officers were unprovoked ambushes.
This is unconscionable. As a pastor at First Baptist Church, Charlotte,
North Carolina, I actually witnessed and saw families suffering and
hurting of police officers that were murdered in just this way.
Police officers are community leaders and public servants who deserve
the respect of the country. Instead, it seems coldblooded killers have
been deliberately targeting our law enforcement heroes, and it is now
more important than ever not to just talk but to act.
I am confident that Congressman Moore's bill will accomplish just
that. Our Nation's police are under constant attack and they need
Congress' steadfast support. This bill will shine a light on the
threats that law enforcement face, threats that have steeply risen in
number ever since the left began its dangerous defund the police
rhetoric, and it will begin the process of expanding the resources
available to law enforcement officials.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to join me in supporting the
Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act,
and let's ensure that our Nation's police forces know that we have
their back.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Ms. Elfreth).
Ms. ELFRETH. Mr. Speaker, local law enforcement officers bravely and
tirelessly work to protect our communities day in and day out. The
situations that these law enforcement officers encounter put them, as
we all know, at an increased risk of developing mental health
disorders, including PTSD, depression, and anxiety.
This Police Week, I thank the sponsors of the bill, my colleagues
across the aisle, for introducing H.R. 2240, the Improving Law
Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act.
I did offer an amendment to require that the Department of Justice
include recommendations on improving training programs for domestic
violence cases because far too often our local law enforcement officers
are at the front lines of response to domestic violence cases. These
situations not only need to be handled carefully with specialized
training, but they also take a toll on officers' own well-being.
While this amendment was not made in order, I rise today because I
believe it is essential to address the issues of domestic violence and
the mental health of our officers in a bipartisan manner.
I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle in
addressing this critical need and continuing to address these issues
together.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will just spend a little bit more time speaking. Not
only are my colleagues apparently letting DOGE get away with
terminating the Department of Justice grant programs, but they are also
attempting to rob Federal law enforcement officers of their hard-earned
retirement benefits.
I will put on the Record that, unlike other Federal employees,
Federal law enforcement officers are eligible to retire voluntarily
after serving our country for at least 20 years and reaching the age of
50 or after 25 years of service at any age.
Now, the Special Retirement Supplement for Federal officers provides
roughly one-third of a Federal officer's retirement benefits, bridging
the financial gap between when an officer chooses to retire and when
they become eligible for Social Security at age 62.
This Special Retirement Supplement ensures financial stability for
those who have dedicated their lives and their careers to protecting
this country, but our Republican colleagues, their reconciliation bill,
would limit the supplement only to those who reach the mandatory
retirement age of 57 no matter how many years they have served.
It would also apply not just to new hires but to all officers, to
those who clearly earned the ability to claim this benefit and didn't
sign up for this new rule. The moment Trump signs the reconciliation
bill into law, any officer that retires before reaching the age of 57
would lose one-third of their retirement benefits, making voluntary
retirement untenable for every Federal law enforcement officer who is
at or near retirement.
{time} 1345
Cutting the supplement would have an immediate effect on the
retention of overburdened, increasingly demoralized officers across the
Federal Government, creating an overwhelming incentive for tens of
thousands of eligible officers to retire before they plan to, before
this change becomes law.
In closing, it is National Police Week, and we are honoring the brave
men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every
single day to protect our communities and this Nation.
I was proud to vote ``yes'' on this resolution on the House floor
yesterday to express our Nation's gratitude to our law enforcement. I
would also like to thank all the families for their courage and
strength because families of law enforcement are part of this, too.
As ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, I hear directly from
families and officers from all across the country about the reforms
that they desperately need. I will continue to champion bills that
provide tools that help our law enforcement officers and keep them all
safe because they deserve that.
We stand with all of our officers around the country, whether they be
Federal, State, or local, and we thank them for their service.
Though I really wish that we were doing so much more this week to
make our officers safe or to invest in resources for their well-being,
I will support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the
very same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no
shortage of us who are attorneys or at least former attorneys on this
floor. One of the things, of course, is when we hear information, we
want to run it down and sometimes correct the record.
My good friend from Maryland pointed out about some sort of cuts from
DOGE that would affect law enforcement, so I immediately wanted to look
and see what he possibly could be talking about. I think what the
gentleman was talking about were a couple things.
One was getting rid of a $250,000 grant, funding for jailed trans
inmates working with incarcerated transgender individuals providing
gender-affirming care to include housing in gender-appropriate
facilities. Actually, I think that is a pretty good thing to get rid of
so we can put more resources in to helping law enforcement.
Next is $2 million for some sort of national listening session for,
as I understand it, criminal defendants.
Then we have $695,000 for a parallel convergent mixed-methods case
study. I don't even know what that means, a parallel convergent mixed-
methods case study research designed to assess the efficacy of police
departments' LGBTQ liaison services.
I think one of the things with this reconciliation bill and with the
actions of President Trump is to get rid of the waste and to put the
resources to helping our men and women in law enforcement.
During National Police Week, as we are honoring police, while we have
a few differences of opinion and may disagree on a few other matters, I
am at least comforted by the fact of knowing that we all, on both sides
of the aisle, do support law enforcement.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath)
has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
[[Page H2077]]
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman stirred me out of my stupor
there by coming back with a couple of grants that apparently were
eliminated. I will take his word for it. If I did the internal math
correctly, that was less than $2 million out of $811 million cut in
awards that were made by the Department of Justice to local law
enforcement citizen community safety groups, and so on across the
country.
Now, apparently there are certain grants that the gentleman doesn't
want ever to go out. For example, I take it the gentleman doesn't think
very highly of anything having to do with citizens who are transgender.
We differ about that, apparently, because I think everybody has civil
rights and everybody's voice needs to be heard.
In any event, that needs to be brought up in the Appropriations
Committee where we can vote on it democratically. That should not be up
to one of Elon Musk's midnight riders, a computer hacker who comes in
and simply decides to wipe out all of the handiwork of the United
States House of Representatives and the United States Senate signed
into law by the President and then awarded by the Department of
Justice.
We do not have a fourth branch of government here, which is what the
Federal District Court, Northern California, was saying on Friday.
Are my colleagues aware that there have been more than 250 cases
brought against the reign of lawlessness and authoritarianism brought
down on America in the first 5 months of the Trump administration?
There are 156 preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders
right now.
A couple of hours ago, the Supreme Court heard the case about Donald
Trump in an executive order trying to destroy birthright citizenship in
America. Every sixth grader in America knows that if you are born in
America, you are a citizen of the United States. They tried to reverse
that. That got struck down by four courts.
They call them radical left rogue judges. Well, two of the ones who
struck it down were Democratic appointees, one by President Obama and
one by President Biden. The other two were Republican appointees, one
appointed by President Bush and one appointed by President Reagan, who
said that in his four decades on the bench he had never seen a more
unconstitutional law than that one. He had never seen an easier case
than that one.
You don't have to be a lawyer to understand what is wrong with that.
You just have to know how to read. The first sentence of the 14th
Amendment says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States. . . . `'
These people are finger painting all over the Constitution. They are
usurping the rule of law as adopted by the Congress of the United
States. They are creating new branches of government. I am glad that
they finally ran Elon Musk out of town because he was no longer
politically useful to him, but in the meantime we have to deal with the
wreckage.
If he, by accident, did something the gentleman agrees with, bully
for him, great, but in the meantime, he has undone the will of
Congress. He has nullified and canceled hundreds of millions of dollars
going out to public safety and criminal law enforcement across America.
Let's get back to the rule of law. Let's get back to law enforcement.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield
myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said earlier, while I do really support this
legislation, I also call on my colleagues to stand with law enforcement
by restoring these critical grants commemorating the bravery of our
officers on January 6 and every day, protecting their pay, protecting
their benefits, and all that the Federal officers have earned over the
course of the time that they have served their communities and this
country and ensuring that every Federal agency can continue to provide
critical assistance to our State and local law enforcement.
We can do a lot better. They deserve so much better from us. Let's
please work to do better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This is an incredibly commonsense and bipartisan piece of
legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Law enforcement
has been demonized and attacked. They have been defunded in leftwing
jurisdictions many years ago.
I hope that that movement is forever in the dustbin of our history
because we owe it to law enforcement to support them in any number of
ways that we can as policymakers. One of the easiest ways, in my mind,
is this bill. Data is incredibly important, Mr. Speaker. You know this
firsthand. Data is incredibly important. Understanding these attacks on
our law enforcement, how it is affected by the officer, how these
things occur, where they occur, these data points are incredibly
important to understand and protect our law enforcement.
Last year, I think all of the Republicans and the vast majority of my
Democratic colleagues supported this very measure. I hope that this
year even more Democrats will support it and that it will be signed
into law because this data is incredibly important to make sure that we
protect our law enforcement officers. This is just a small way that we
can advance that initiative forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________