To reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2379, a bill to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, and I would also like to thank Mr. Pascrell for his work on this. This is something that we have seen over many years, and I appreciate the chairman and my friend from Georgia on the committee for bringing this forward as well.

The Bulletproof Vest Partnership, or the BVP, created by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998, is a unique U.S. Department of Justice initiative designed to provide a critical resource to State and local law enforcement. The goal of the BVP is to support the purchase of body armor that has been tested and found to comply with applicable ballistic and stab standards promulgated by the National Institute of Justice.

For the past 20 years, the BVP has awarded more than 13,000 jurisdictions a total of $467 million in Federal funds for the purchase of over 1.3 million vests.

From fiscal year 2015 through 2017, protective vests were directly attributable to saving the lives of at least 129 law enforcement and corrections officers. BVP funds helped purchase 21 of those vests.

In short, body armor saves lives. For 30 years, bullet-resistant body armor has protected law enforcement officers from ballistic and nonballistic incidents. As recorded by the IACP/DuPont Kevlar Survivors' Club, more than 3,100 officers have survived potentially fatal or disabling injuries because they were wearing their body armor.

The bill before us today permanently reauthorizes this vitally important program. It will ensure our local heroes are protected from those who try to do them harm.

When a law enforcement officer leaves home in the morning, there is no guarantee he or she will return home safely that evening. This program makes it more likely, though, that these heroes will see their families again.

That is why I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 2379. As the son of a Georgia State trooper, I know what that means.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do appreciate this time. This is a special week for me personally because it is recognizing something that I grew up with. It recognizes something that I am that I can't get a part of who I am. And I appreciate Mr. Pascrell, my friend from New Jersey, talking about this and what that actually means.

But for what I will just term as a trooper's kid, this week means a lot. And it would mean even more when we come here if really, we had had more to do this week. I say that with respect, and I say that with love, because this is a good bill, and I urge everyone to support it, and I want to.

But just this past week, in Georgia, just as was recommended and said in New Jersey, just in the past few days in Savannah, Georgia, we lost another officer, Sergeant Kelvin Ansari, in an incident. He went to work and did not come home.

For the past few years, I have been in this body, and we have worked during Police Week, even beforehand, to bring up bills and to bring up issues that involve our law enforcement community because I recognize, and I know others in this body do as well, that on those mornings when they get up to go to work, the ladies and gentlemen who serve us in our law enforcement community, all of us, they are giving a gift of life to go serve others.

And on many days, unfortunately, the headlines will show to us that they don't return home; some through violence; some through activity; some, as we have seen this past year in this country, ambushed in front of their own police departments; cruelly murdered by those anarchists in this country who believe that the police are the enemy; and sometimes, fed by others who want a different version of what upholding the law means. And that is sad.

My heart breaks, because when those officers don't come home, there is a space left at the table. There is a void left in the hearts of families and communities.

One of my earliest remembrances of my dad as a trooper, and one of the biggest things that made an impression on me, was years ago there was a trooper who had made a stop on 129 South out of Gainesville, Georgia, T.C. Dillard. As he made that stop, a young man who was not in his right mind through drugs, came over a hill and hit him.

I remember hearing about it. I was young at the time, and I remember him being taken to the hospital. And I can remember my dad and other officers all going to the hospital, and they were giving blood and doing whatever they could. It was one of the first times I remember of my earliest remembrances of watching my dad cry.

To a scrawny kid from north Georgia, who had a dad, and has a dad who is 6 feet 2 inches, 250 pounds, carried a .357 on his hip, and wore the badge of the Georgia State Patrol, he was and is my hero. To see him cry was something I had not experienced. To watch him love another officer and do anything for that officer is something that has impacted me today.

As we move forward, and we look at the things today, I guess my only thing--and I wanted to spend just a few more moments on this, because this is our only chance. This is the only bill that we have dealing with Law Enforcement Week this week.

I know that we are busy in the Judiciary Committee. I know that we have got a lot of other things going on. I know that we have so many things that we need to investigate, and I get that.

I am not--for once, I am just honestly speaking as much as a Congressman as I am as a trooper's kid.

Thirty thousand officers will be coming to Washington, D.C. over the next few days to honor those who have fallen, and to remember this week. And this bill, which is a good bill, is it. It is all we are offering. It is all we are discussing.

In years past, in 2018, we had six bills, including one rule bill. In 2017, nine bills, including two rule bills. 2016, eight bills, including two rule bills. Protect and Serve, Thin Blue Line, Probation Officer Protection Act of 2017, the Comprehensive Opioid and Abuse Act, which gave our officers training in how they can actually help in an opioid crisis.

I understand that we have a lot going on, but in our committee right now we have H.R. 816, which would ensure certain law enforcement officers on college campuses and their families are eligible for death and disability benefits under the Public Safety Officers Benefit Program.

H.R. 816 is named in honor of Sean Collier, a police officer at MIT who was

murdered by one of the Tsarnaev brothers after the attack at the Boston Marathon. This is to make sure their family has security.

Another bill from my committee colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), is his aim to prevent law enforcement suicides. Other bills that we have pending for law enforcement by helping them provide resources to combat opioid crisis or curb sex trafficking. In years past, we have considered numerous bills, not all of them, in fact, most of them noncontroversial. But we didn't seem to have time to mark them up this year or to bring them forward.

I understand, and I am trying my best to just bring an honest concern, because when you look at these officers--and I used to ride with them; as I got older and I went to seminary and I was a chaplain for the Gainesville Police Department--it never leaves you.

As I came here today, and I appreciate my friend from Georgia, we have shared so many things together, we have done this, and Mr. Pascrell and others who have talked about this.

But this is it. This is our only chance to actually say to these people--instead of just saying we appreciate you; we love you; and we are glad that you do what you do and offer them help in the things that they do, we offer them bulletproof vests, which is good; but it is all we are offering right now.

And I want to make sure, on this floor, for those kids whose dads and moms didn't come home this past year, just a reminder that it is not about what we say to those officers, it is also what we do.

I live each day, as best as I possibly can, to do as best as I possibly can for the ones who have given me so much; my mom, who I lost last June, my dad, who I still have, who taught me how to grow up; how to love; how to care; taught me to serve my country in the military and to serve my country here.

But when I come to a discussion today, and I heard my friend from New Jersey so eloquently discuss those who lost their lives in New Jersey and here in Savannah, the one thing that gets me up every morning, and if I have had a bad day, or if I am thinking about it, and when I hear all the discussion in this country about officers who are bad, or officers who are not doing it right, and officers--I understand the discussion that we need to have in our communities, and how we need to come together as communities to help each other and to lift each other up, from the poorest communities to the richest; the police are there to take the law. And if there are bad ones, they need to be got out. But they are 99.99 percent good, who honestly just want to do a good job, and we need to honor that.

But when we talk about bulletproof vests, when we talk about other issues of how we care for officers, just remember those this week, especially those who didn't come home because, Mr. Speaker, except by the grace of God, I would have not known my father, because on a traffic stop, when I was still a small child, he walked up to a car. He caught a glint of a gun laying on the shoulder of the driver. He, fortunately, was able to pull his gun, and they stood there for many minutes in a standoff until the gentleman threw the gun out of the car window. That incident almost deprived me of knowing my hero.

When we talk about police, when we talk about law enforcement and the other first responders on all sides, but the police we are talking about today, I just humbly believe that there is more that we can do, and I look forward to working with our committee to do more throughout this year.

But on this week, it is worth pointing out that these folks stand in the line, many of them not sleeping while we sleep, and they are worth protecting, and they are worth more, frankly, than this one bill; and I look forward to working with my Democratic colleagues to make sure that we see more come across this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am almost at the end, but as I was finishing up--and I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia's words, and I agree that we can--but I would be remiss if I didn't share what I just got in my inbox. I just got this in my inbox.

It is a letter signed by my chairman of my committee and four other members of our committee on Police Week. After I just talked about how we can do more, this is what we are doing more.

``As you know, the House Judiciary Committee exercises legislative and oversight jurisdiction in the areas of civil rights and criminal law enforcement. These areas continue to be subjects of intense national concern in the wake of high-profile incidents involving the fatal use of force by law enforcement against unarmed people in cities such as Ferguson, Baltimore, Cleveland, Chicago, Falcon Heights, Tulsa, Pittsburgh, and Dallas. In 2018, 992 people were shot and killed by police. In the first 2 months of this year, at least 265 people have suffered the same fate.''

Mr. Speaker, I include the May 14, 2019, letter in the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, May 14, 2019.

Hon. William P. Barr,

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,

Washington, DC.

Dear Attorney General Barr: As you know, the House

Judiciary Committee exercises legislative and oversight

jurisdiction in areas of civil rights and criminal law

enforcement. These areas continue to be subjects of intense

national concern in the wake of high-profile incidents

involving the fatal use of force by law enforcement against

unarmed people in cities such as Ferguson, Baltimore,

Cleveland, Chicago, Falcon Heights, Tulsa, Pittsburgh, and

Dallas, In 2018, 992 people were shot and killed by police.

``In the first two months of this year, at least 265 people

have suffered the same fate.``

Despite continuing concerns from civil rights and

community-based organizations, the Department has sharply

curtailed its statutory role in identifying and eradicating

civil rights abuses by law enforcement. Excessive force in

police-civilian encounters presents a crisis of trust

throughout our nation. Changes to Department policy and

failure to uphold the law run the risk of undermining federal

oversight authority in this space.

Congress identified the need for the Department and

community stakeholders to play a role in eliminating unjust

and discriminatory practices by law enforcement. With that

goal in mind, Congress has provided the Department with the

authority to identify and eliminate patterns and practices of

unconstitutional conduct in law enforcement agencies through

civil action and administrative authority. Additionally, it

provided the Department the ability to encourage communities

to have a voice in how they are policed through programs

offered by the Community Oriented Policing Services or ``COPS

Office.'' These tools must be used to promote Constitutional

poJicing practices that support public safety and respect

civil rights and civil liberties.

Accordingly, we write to request information related to the

manner in which the Department of Justice is currently

carrying out its statutory responsibilities to eliminate

patterns and practices of unconstitutional conduct in law

enforcement agencies. We respectfully request you provide

complete responses and produce the relevant documents and

communications listed below by no later than June 5, 2019:

1. Documents and communications dated from January 1, 2017

to March 31, 2017, relating to Attorney General Sessions's

March 31, 2017 Memorandum, ``Supporting Federal, State,

Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement.'' This should include any

prior drafts of the memorandum. Please include a list

identifying all individuals involved in the decision to

conduct the review of ``existing or contemplated consent

decrees.''

2. Documents and communications dated from January 1, 2017

to November 7, 2018, relating to Attorney General Sessions's

November 7, 2018 Memorandum ``Principles and Procedures for

Civil Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements with State

and Local Government Entities.'' This should include any

prior drafts of the memorandum. Please include a list

identifying all individuals involved in the decision to

identify issues arising from the Department's ``civil

action[s] against a state or local government . . . by

consent decree or settlement agreement.''

3. Documents and communications dated from January 1, 2017

to November 21, 2018, from or to the Acting Associate

Attorney General Jesse Panuccio and Deputy Associate Attorney

General Stephen Cox concerning the Department's recession or

withdrawal of policies, procedures, and guidance issued by

the Civil Rights Division, the Office of Justice Programs,

the COPS Office, and the Office of Violence Against Women.

4. Please provide copies of any standards or guidelines, by

which the Department identifies potential patterns or

practices of conduct by law enforcement agencies that deprive

persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or

protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

5. Documents and communications dated from January 1, 2017

to the date of this letter, identifying any Department-

negotiated consent decree, authorized under 34 U.S.C. Section

12601 (b), that has ``deprived the elected representatives of

the people of any affected jurisdiction of control over their

government.''

6. Documents and communications dated from January 1, 2017

to the date of this letter, identifying any Department-

negotiated consent decree, authorized under 34 U.S.C. Section

12601 (b), that has subjected a law enforcement agency to

ongoing court oversight after the Department determined that

the purpose of the consent decree had been achieved.

7. Documents and Communications dated from January 1, 2017

to the date of this letter, from non-government organizations

relating to the Department's review of existing or proposed

consent decrees or reform agreements pursuant to the Attorney

General's March 31, 2017 Memorandum.

8. Documents and communications dated from November 7, 2018

to the date of this letter, relating to updating standards or

guidelines used to identify patterns and practices

of discriminations by state or local law enforcement

agencies. This response should include how complaints

against recipients of federal financial assistance from

the Office of Justice Programs, other grant making

agencies, and participants in the Asset Forfeiture Program

are centrally accounted for or tabulated and considered in

opening investigations into alleged discriminatory

patterns and practices by law enforcement agency.

9. Copies of standards or guidelines in force as of January

1, 2017, that the Department uses to determine whether the

Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a

violation of 34 U.S.C. Section 1260l(a) has occurred.

10. Documents and communications dated from November 7,

2018 to the date of this letter, relating to updating

guidelines or standards used to determine whether the

Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a

violation of 34 U.S.C. Section 1260l(a) has occurred.

11. Copies of any evidence-based study, analysis, or report

supporting the decision to adopt the general statement of

principles as memorialized in the Attorney General's November

7, 2018 Memorandum.

12. Documents and communications dated from January 1, 2018

to the date of this letter, relating to proposed changes to

the existing memorandums of understanding or agreement,

resolution agreements, or consent decrees, including but not

limited to the matters open in Baltimore, Chicago, and

Ferguson.

13. Total number of preliminary inquiries and

investigations of law enforcement agencies opened, initiated,

or given a case or other tracking number by the Civil Rights

Division or civil rights matters opened by the Office of

Justice Programs after January 1, 2017. Please include a list

identifying each law enforcement agency subject to a

preliminary investigation or inquiry after January 1, 2017,

and a brief description of the basis for the preliminary

investigation or inquiry.

14. Total number of preliminary inquiries or investigations

of law enforcement agencies closed after March 31, 2017.

Please include a list identifying the date each case was

closed, the identity of the law enforcement agency subject of

the preliminary inquiry or investigation, and a brief

description of the basis for closing the preliminary

investigation or inquiry.

15. Total number of complaints, referrals, or multi-party

complaints received by the Department after January 1, 2017,

from a federal, state, or local public official relating to

potential pattern or practice violations by a law enforcement

agency. Please provide brief descriptions of each referral or

complaint.

16. Documents and communications dated from February 9,

2017 to the date of this letter, relating to modifications of

existing agreements for technical assistance with law

enforcement agencies, COPS Office proposed budget, or changes

to existing Department guidelines or standards relating to

the administration of the Collaborative Reform Initiative for

Technical Assistance.

17. Total number of requests, including any memorandums or

communications dated after January 1, 2017 to the date of

this letter, to open investigations of law enforcement agency

officers or agencies from the Special Litigation Section to

the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under section

12601.

18. Documents or Communications dated from January 1, 2017

to the date of this letter, related to the review and

decision to retreat from the agreement in principle with the

Chicago Police Department and Chicago, including any review

or analysis of the findings by the AG and his office of

evidence of constitutional violations presented in the

findings letter dated January 3, 2017.

19. An account of open investigations alleging an unlawful

pattern and practice or disparate impact involving law

enforcement agencies and explanation of what steps the

Department has taken to withdraw federal funding of law

enforcement agencies that are subject to the grant conditions

pursuant to Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

Streets Act of 1968. In your response, please address the

Department's investigations of the Springfield, Massachusetts

Police Department, the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, and

the Orange County District Attorney's Office and Sheriffs

Department.

Thank you for your prompt attention on this matter. We look

forward to working more closely with your office in the 116th

Congress.

Sincerely,

Jerrold Nadler,

Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary.

Karen Bass,

Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland

Security, House Committee on the Judiciary.

Mary Gay Scanlon,

Vice Chair, House Committee on the Judiciary.

Steve Cohen,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and

Civil Liberties, House Committee on the Judiciary.

Sheila Jackson Lee,

Member of Congress.

Are you kidding me? We couldn't wait a week?

Look, vote for this bill. This bill is a good bill. But this shows the dedication of the majority to Police Week right here. It is about what my chairman of the committee did. It is about what we say and what we do. This is what we did.

On the first part of Police Week, we sent to the Attorney General a discussion about people who are shot by police, many of which in no context here of how the accidents occurred or how it occurred or what was actually happening; it is just that we need to go investigate, a 4- , 5-page letter.

Vote for the bill. The bill is a good bill.

This letter is embarrassing.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Again, I will come back to the issue. This bulletproof vest bill is a great bill. It needs to be permanent. In fact, if we can do better, it would be great. We need to do more.

I made my point about this letter, and, unfortunately, this is a stain on Police Week, and hopefully we can do better, and I know we will.

I trust my friend from Georgia. I trust my friend from New Jersey. We can do this, and we can do this better. I am sorry that this is the way it has had to start, but actions do speak louder than anything else, than words, like I said, and this is an action on Police Week that, frankly, is unbelievable.

Support this underlying bill. Support this bill for bulletproof vests. Support our officers not just with words, but with actions as well, and I know the Members here on this floor are doing that. It is just a shame that this had to come out with that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2379.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, this may seem like just a perfunctory thing, but I want to speak about what we just did.

The Senate passed legislation to permanently reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. This is the sixth time I have worked to reauthorize this lifesaving program since I and my Republican partner, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, of Colorado, authored the legislation to establish it more than 20 years ago.

My role in authoring this program--and my commitment to it ever since as we have reauthorized it and reauthorized it--was, in part, motivated by a horrific incident the year before Senator Nighthorse Campbell and I created it.

On August 19, 1997, a man named Carl Drega went on a killing spree along the Vermont and New Hampshire border. After hours of pursuit, Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities in Vermont and New Hampshire cornered Drega, and in an ensuing exchange of gunfire, he was killed.

During the shoot-out, all of the Federal law enforcement officers involved were wearing bulletproof vests. This includes John Pfeifer, a Vermonter and a

longtime friend. His father was one of my favorite professors in college, and I remember John as a child. He was seriously wounded. In fact, at that time, then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and his family were staying with us at our home in Vermont.

We visited Officer Pfeifer, who was a U.S. Border Patrol agent, in the hospital. He was grievously wounded, but he survived and later became the Chief Patrol Agent of the sector. I have always feared--and I believe he agrees--that had it not been for his bulletproof vest, the outcome for John and his family may have been much worse.

Some of the state and local officers involved were not that fortunate. Two New Hampshire state troopers were killed. They were not wearing bulletproof vests. I don't know whether vests would have saved their lives. Let us hope they would have.

One thing I do know is that no officer should have to serve without having the benefit of wearing a bulletproof vest. That is what this is all about. I am immensely proud of this program. It is the most tangible support that all of us in Congress--both parties--can provide to our Nation's law enforcement officers.

To this day, for far too many jurisdictions, especially rural and smaller agencies, vests cost too much, and they wear out too soon. This program fills in the gap. It has provided more than 13,000 law enforcement agencies with 1.35 million vests. It has saved the lives of countless officers, several of whom have shared their stories with the Judiciary Committee, here in the Senate, during previous years. In fact, according to the Government Accountability Office, more than 3,000 officers' lives have been saved by vests since 1987. It makes me very proud to know these officers can still be with their families and their departments.

Just yesterday, my office received a call from the Union City Police Department in Georgia. Last month, one of its officers, Jerome Turner, Jr.--shown in this photograph--was shot multiple times when he responded to a call. One round hit him directly in the chest, but it did not get through his bulletproof vest. When backup arrived, Officer Turner was lying on the ground from his other injuries. He went through 6 hours of surgery, but he lived. His department called yesterday to tell me that the vest that saved his life was purchased through this program. Everybody in my office and I just applauded at that news.

My staff also had a chance to talk with Officer Turner. He is still recovering, but he said he is happy to be home with his family--his family he might never have seen again. He also said what we all know to be true--the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program is critical to ensuring officers around the country can return home to their families after their shifts.

Officer Turner knows a lot about this program. It turns out that he previously served as the chief of police in a small town in Florida, which is the Presiding Officer's State. He used this program to outfit his officers with protective vests in order to keep his officers safe while they were protecting us.

This week is National Police Week. It is a time for the Nation to honor the many brave men and women in law enforcement who have lost their lives while having served their communities. That includes the 163 officers who were lost last year--52 of them killed by gunfire. The fact that Congress has now passed legislation to permanently reauthorize this program places real meaning behind our words of tribute. The legislation also increases the funding for vests as, year after year, only a fraction of the need is met.

This program is not now, and never has been, partisan. When we started, I said that I and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, of Colorado--a Republican--started it. I am especially grateful to Senator Lindsey Graham for being the lead cosponsor of both this and the last reauthorization.

Last week, our bill was being considered by the Judiciary Committee. I have to admit I was a bit surprised and very humbled when Chairman Graham called up an amendment to name the program after me and when it then got a unanimous vote from Republicans and Democrats. I am always going to be thankful, for the program is personal to me, and it is personal, certainly, to the officers who wear these vests.

I thank my many staff who have worked on this program for 22 years, including Dave Pendle, Erica Chabot, Ed Pagano, Bruce Cohen, Matt Virkstis, Kristine Lucius, Chan Park, David Carle, Jessica Berry, and many others.

I am also thankful to the entire law enforcement community, which has spoken with a single voice on this issue--a single voice. In particular I would like to thank Chuck Canterbury, Jim Pasco, and Tim Richardson with the Fraternal Order of Police--all friends of mine. The FOP has strongly supported this program from the beginning, and has been there for each of the six reauthorizations.

I would also like to thank for their support the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the National Tactical Officers Association, and the Sergeants Benevolent Association, Last, I would like to thank the sponsors of the House companion which the Senate just passed, Congressmen Bill Pascrell and Peter King.

Without this legislation, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program would expire next year. Once this legislation is signed into law, it will never expire. It has already saved the lives of so many, and placed vests on the backs of well over one million officers. Now we know that millions more officers will be protected, and millions of officers like Officer Turner will be able to go home to their families.

I wonder if the Senate would allow me to tell a story.

When we were doing the reauthorization, I had asked a police officer from Pennsylvania to come and testify. He came. His parents, his wife, and his children sat behind him. He gave very moving testimony. He said the two most important things to him in life were his family and law enforcement. He told us about how, a short while before, he stopped a car at a routine traffic stop. He got out of his police car, and the person in the other car stepped out and fired four shots at him--point blank. He fell over. Others caught the person.

He said: As I was falling, I thought I would never see my family again. I had a couple of cracked ribs. They came to visit me in the hospital. I went back home with them to their love and care. Then I went back to work. This is what saved me.

He reached under the table and held up a bulletproof vest, and you could still see three large caliber slugs embedded in it.

He said: Those would have been in my heart. I never would have seen my family, and I never would have gone back to law enforcement.

At that time, I was the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. After his testimony, I asked if we could have a unanimous vote to reauthorize. It was the fastest unanimous vote I can remember in that committee.

As I said then and as I say now, this is the least Congress can do on behalf of our Nation's law enforcement officers. Obviously, I am proud to have had the legislation named after me, but I am proud of all of the Senators over the last 20-plus years--Republicans and Democrats-- who have supported it. I am glad we have done it. Now it will head to the President for his signature, and I am sure the President will sign it without delay.

I see nobody else who seeks recognition.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2379) to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, as amended.

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 bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program stands as a shining example of the public safety collaboration between Congress and local governments to improve public safety and protect the officers who protect us.

In the 20 years that the program has been in existence, Congress has allocated funds that have enabled local law enforcement agencies to purchase more than 1.3 million bulletproof vests. Through this program, thousands of officers have survived what would otherwise have been deadly shootings.

Without the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program, local jurisdictions that lack the financial means to purchase vests would simply be unable to do so.

As reauthorized under H.R. 2379, the program would give priority to small jurisdictions that apply for assistance. Those that most need the Federal support will continue to have priority.

An often-overlooked element of the program is the supporting role the National Institute of Justice plays in providing expert analysis on the quality and life expectancy of bulletproof vests, ensuring that officers who patrol our streets every day and every night wear vests that will give them the measure of safety that they deserve. Importantly, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program has worked in recent years to ensure the vests that female officers are issued fit properly and provide the same protection as the vests that male officers are issued.

With H.R. 2379, the House today takes a crucial step toward ending an uncertainty concerning the future of the program by permanently authorizing its funding at $30 million per year.

It is fitting that we consider this important legislation at the start of National Police Week, which honors those who serve and have paid the ultimate price and sacrifice in protecting our communities.

Since President John F. Kennedy first signed the proclamation designating National Peace Officers Memorial Day in 1962, officers and citizens assemble in our Nation's Capital during Police Week to thank law enforcement officers for their service, dedication, and commitment.

It is in that spirit that we seek to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. It is also fitting that this bill names the program in honor of the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy, who played a critical role in conceiving it and who has been a consistent champion of its continuation and, now, its permanent reauthorization.

I thank Senator Leahy for his leadership.

I would be remiss if I were not to recognize the tireless efforts of the author of H.R. 2379, my good friend Congressman Bill Pascrell, who has worked diligently to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill that will help protect those who put their lives on the line to protect us. I urge my colleagues to support it today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This could not be a more solemn moment than what my friend from Georgia just expressed to the Nation about our State and local law enforcement personnel, male, female, Black, White, Latino, Asian, this legislation is an effort to protect them.

And I will note that there have not been just one, but actually three deaths of law enforcement officers already this year in the State of Georgia. The numbers are up. It is very concerning, and this is something that we can do to help protect the lives of our law enforcement officers.

I know that my friend from Georgia, Representative Collins, has a long and storied history of support for State and local law enforcement, and I stand with him in his concern, and I stand with him in his support for this very important legislation that my friend, Bill Pascrell, has introduced.

I will note that a lot of little boys and girls who first go into law enforcement, they go into local and State law enforcement, and then they are able to attain their ultimate dream, which is to become an FBI agent.

FBI agents are Federal law enforcement agents. They are sworn to protect and serve; they wear a gun, and they wake up every morning not knowing what they will face during that day. Some have given their lives in the ultimate sacrifice for this Nation.

So, in addition to our State and local law enforcement agents, we, today, uphold our Federal law enforcement agents who work for the various Federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, with its storied history of integrity.

So, it is not about what we say; it is about what we do. It is about what we say also, because what we say has an impact on those who serve us. And we cannot, because of one or two outliers, indict the entire State or local law enforcement agency for the imperfections of the few; nor can we do so with our Federal law enforcement agencies, particularly our premier Federal law enforcement agency, the FBI.

I support the FBI. I support our State and local law enforcement agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining for both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The top law enforcement individual in the country is the Attorney General, and our Attorney General has declared war on the FBI by ordering a third investigation into the origins of the Mueller investigation. This is nothing more than an attack on our own premier law enforcement agency. It is politics reduced to its lowest level at the same time as Police Week is occurring.

What does it say to those down the line, to those aspiring boys and girls who aspire to be FBI agents?

What does it say to the men and women who are currently in law enforcement and looking to move into Federal law enforcement?

Well, it doesn't tell them to not aspire to that height. I think most look beyond the politics of the day, and when they consider the legislation that is at hand, they support it without regard to political persuasion. They support the fact that H.R. 2379, introduced by my friend Bill Pascrell, is a testament to the important role that Congress plays in promoting officer safety today and for decades to come.

In passing this bill during Police Week, we acknowledge the many contributions that law enforcement officers make to public safety, and we thank them for their service. We also recognize that there are challenges within law enforcement that we must weed out and that are an affront to the ideals that law enforcement officers are taught to adhere to, and we must do that, as well.

But today it is not about that. Today it is about bulletproof vests for our law enforcement officers on the State and local level. We will make sure that our Federal officers are always protected, but today it is about State and local law enforcement agents and agencies, particularly those that cannot afford to purchase these bulletproof vests or to keep current in terms of these vests when they wear out.

They do wear out, and they have to be replaced, and they have to have money to do that. This bill will enable $30 million per year to be permanently authorized. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.

Madam Speaker, this week, thousands of law enforcement officers, their families, and their supporters from around the country gathered in Washington, D.C., to commemorate National Police Week.

We are here tonight to thank those who put on the uniform every day to protect our communities and put their lives in the breach between the criminal element and the public they protect.

We are also here to recognize those who have completed their service and now enjoy a well-deserved thank-you for their selfless service to their communities.

But, most importantly, we are here to honor the fallen.

Last year, 158 police officers gave their last measure of devotion to their communities. Among these heroes, you will find every gender, every creed, every race, every religion. They hail from every corner of America.

One of those 158 officers was not only from my district, but served at the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office with me, where I spent a 41-year career.

Officer Lance Whitaker began his career with the Atlantic Beach Police Department and then served 17 dedicated years at Jacksonville Sheriff's Office. He was tragically killed while responding to a call in the early morning hours of May 15, 2018, almost 1 year ago today.

He left behind his son, Cade; his mother, Lannie; and his sister, Angela. He also left behind a memory and a legacy that will live on in the hearts and minds of those who knew him.

Many of us are here today to honor friends, family, and loved ones like Officer Whitaker, who gave his last full measure of devotion to a community he loved and a community that loved him back.

I now ask that we observe a moment of silence for Officer Whitaker and all of the 158 brave law enforcement officers who lost their lives protecting our community.

Tonight, Madam Speaker, in a very bipartisan fashion, we will hear from Members on both sides of the aisle and from all across the country as we join together to show our unity in supporting our police officers.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hill), my friend who is from a law enforcement family and brings a strong pro-police voice to Congress.

Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Hill, and I look forward to working with her on some of the bills she just highlighted. I know that her law enforcement family is proud, so I thank her.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), my good friend, who is from Wisconsin's First District.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and the great State of Wisconsin for their support of law enforcement.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Torres Small), a colleague from New Mexico's Second District. She serves on the Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, and, actually, after law school, worked for a U.S. district judge in New Mexico, so she has got that law enforcement background, also.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the kind words of support for our law enforcement community, and I thank her for her service earlier, as well.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon), my good friend from Nebraska's Second District. He serves on our Agriculture Committee and Armed Services Committee. He is a retired brigadier general and did his deployment in Iraq, and we thank him for that service.

Madam Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of the gentleman's LEOSA bill, and having been a law enforcement officer, I understand exactly what the gentleman is trying to accomplish. I support him 110 percent in that effort, and I appreciate the words.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger), who serves on the Foreign Affairs and Agriculture Committees. She is also--I think we can say this--a former CIA case officer.

Is it safe to say that now?

Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman's father was a career law enforcement officer also.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Virginia and just know that our condolences go to those two officers' families, those heroes that you lost this last year. God bless.

Madam Speaker, I would like to introduce the Member from the great State of Minnesota's Eighth District, Pete Stauber. He serves on the Transportation and Infrastructure and Small Business Committees and was a police officer in Duluth, Minnesota, for 23 years. I thank the gentleman for his service.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the gentleman's 23 years of service. I know what commitment that is, and God bless him for that.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), who is my good friend.

Josh Gottheimer is from New Jersey's Fifth District who serves on the Financial Services Committee and worked in both the public sector as a White House speechwriter and in the private industry for Ford and Microsoft. I thank the gentleman for being here this evening.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for having the backs of police officers who have our back, and I thank the gentleman very much for being here tonight to show that support for law enforcement that is so important across the country.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline). Representative Ben Cline serves on the

House Judiciary and Education and Labor Committees. He is a lawyer and serves as an Assistant Commonwealth Attorney and was also chief of staff and--I didn't know this--chief of staff for my good friend, Bob Goodlatte, who is one of my heroes from Congress.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia.

In particular, I want to offer, again, our condolences to those officers, those heroes from Virginia, who gave their lives in service.

Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize Representative Clay Higgins from the great State of Louisiana, their Third District. He was a National Guard military police officer for many years, a SWAT operator. I am sure he will have some great words for us.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Louisiana for all his service those many years.

I would like to recognize, again, my cohost for tonight, Representative Katie Hill. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hill).

Madam Speaker, it has been an honor to be here with the gentlewoman tonight to recognize our law enforcement community.

Madam Speaker, I will close with this. It is from Ralph Waldo Emerson. He said:

The purpose in life is not to be happy. It is to be useful,

to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some

difference that you have lived and lived well.

Madam Speaker, the 158 lives that we honor tonight, all the thousands of law enforcement officers serving this moment, they live well. For that, we are grateful.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Rutherford, a great friend and colleague, for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize a bipartisan issue that threatens the safety of our law enforcement officers and our communities in which they serve, and we have a solution for it.

Enacted in 2004, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, known as LEOSA, established clear guidelines allowing experienced retired or off-duty officers who maintain proper training to obtain certification allowing him or her to carry concealed firearms. The desired purpose was to create a shared national policy between States allowing off-duty and retired officers to carry their firearms wherever they are, granted they are qualified and received appropriate credentials.

As many of my colleagues know, LEOSA has enjoyed a long history of support from both sides of the aisle. When it was first proposed by a Republican, LEOSA was cosponsored by more than half of the House.

Subsequent amendments signed into law in 2010 and 2013 under Democratic President Barack Obama expanded LEOSA's coverage to include law enforcement officers in most Federal agencies as well as military police. In both instances, reforms were sponsored by Democratic Senators.

LEOSA has always been a bipartisan priority because it is a law enforcement and public safety issue. It is not a Second Amendment or gun rights issue. The same is true about improvements in H.R. 1156, the LEOSA Reform Act, which I am sponsoring.

The LEOSA Reform Act seeks to correct a number of unintended gaps and weaknesses in the original LEOSA bill. These gaps and weaknesses are not due to intentional restrictions in the original statute. Rather, they are areas in which the original statute is silent, resulting in conflicting interpretations and unintended restrictions which effectively limit the ability of off-duty and retired officers to carry their firearms, and we want them to do it in a manner that is safest for them and the public.

This lack of specific language defeats the original intent of the law, which is to allow off-duty and retired officers to carry their firearms wherever they go. Granted, they have to be qualified and have to have received appropriate credentials. That is a given.

It also created an inconsistent implementation across States, leaving many officers to either assume intended risk when carrying in accord with LEOSA or decide not to carry at all.

The LEOSA Reform Act adds specific language to address these unintended weaknesses, and in doing so will make existing law stronger and more workable for those who seek its benefit while maintaining the rigorous standards that currently apply.

The bill does not put more guns into our communities. Individuals affected by this legislation already have the authority to carry concealed weapons in most locations. Rather, H.R. 1156 will help ensure guns that are already in the hands of trained and certified law enforcement officers and retired officers can safely and legally be carried wherever they may be.

In fact, the LEOSA Reform Act will help ensure firearms do not end up in the hands of criminals by allowing law enforcement officers and retired officers to keep their firearms safely on their person, rather than being forced to leave them unattended in vehicles in parking lots of locations that are currently restricted from carrying.

The public's need for rapid intervention by off-duty and retired officers is made clear by the recent incident in California, where the heroic actions of an off-duty Federal officer who ran and shot at the synagogue gunman saved countless lives. It is an example that we see repeatedly. With the rise of tragic shootings in our Nation, empowering trained professionals to carry will allow them to respond more quickly to emergencies and provide years of expertise to these situations.

I have heard from law enforcement officials throughout Nebraska's Second District and the Nation on the importance these changes will have on the lives of our community's heroes and their ability to protect themselves and others. In fact, the LEOSA Reform Act has been endorsed by 20 professional law enforcement organizations whose membership, when combined, is representative of well over half of all law enforcement in our country.

On National Police Week, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in providing greater public safety for law enforcement and our communities at home by cosponsoring the LEOSA Reform Act. Officer safety and public safety is a bipartisan issue, and together we must and can do better.

Madam Speaker, I will close with this: If I am in a situation where I am being victimized, who do I want near me?

I would love to have a retired or off-duty policeman who is armed, and this bill makes that more likely.