H.Res. 1377

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1377 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1377, providing for consideration of four measures: H.R. 4118, H.R. 6448; H.R. 5768, and H.R. 8542, all under closed rules.

For H.R. 4118 and H.R. 6448, the rule provides 30 minutes of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary for each bill and motions to recommit for each measure.

For H.R. 5768, the rule provides 30 minutes of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Nadler, and provides a motion to recommit.

For H.R. 8542, the bill provides 30 minutes of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and a motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, Democrats in this Congress have been focused on building safer communities since day one. We believe that every child in America deserves the safety and security of growing up in a community free from violence, trusting that the people who keep them safe will do that regardless of the color of their skin or the ZIP Code that they live in. We believe that the need to fight crime and improve safety in our communities should unite us, not divide us.

These are good bills that we are considering today that will make our communities safer.

The Mental Health Justice Act creates a grant program for States and local governments to train and dispatch mental health professionals to respond to emergencies that involve people with behavioral needs.

The VICTIM Act establishes a grant program to hire, train, and retain detectives and victim services personnel to investigate shootings and support victims.

The Break the Cycle of Violence Act provides grants to communities for evidence-based community violence intervention and prevention programs designed to interrupt cycles of violence.

The Invest to Protect Act creates a grant program to provide police departments of fewer than 125 officers training resources for calls involving people with substance use disorders, mental health needs, and for people with disabilities.

I am glad that we are moving forward today. I am thankful to my colleagues who have worked on these bills.

Do I want more?

Of course.

Will I keep fighting for us to do more?

Absolutely.

The truth is we still haven't made meaningful gains when it comes to accountability. The House passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Sadly, the Senate is yet to act on that bill.

But I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, and if you don't like what is in one of these bills or all of them, then you can vote against them. But I strongly urge everybody on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on the rule so we can at least move this forward and have the opportunity to debate these measures.

I am confident that many of the provisions of these four bills will help save lives. But this conversation can't end here. We need to keep making our communities safer in new, innovative, and imaginative ways. We can start by passing this rule and passing the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague from Minnesota and appreciate serving with her on the Rules Committee, but I think the only talk about politics here is from the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

She talks about defunding the police. The bills that are before us are grant programs. So I am not sure what she is talking about. If you want to talk about politics, fine, let's talk about voting records.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Washington Post article titled ``21 House Republicans vote against awarding Congressional Gold Medal to all police officers who responded on January 6.''

[From the Washington Post, June 15, 2022]

21 House Republicans Vote Against Awarding Congressional Gold Medal to

All Police Officers Who Responded on Jan. 6

(By Felicia Sonmez)

Twenty-one House Republicans on Tuesday voted against

awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to all police officers

who responded to the Jan. 6 violent attack on the Capitol by

a pro-Trump mob.

The measure passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan

support from 406 lawmakers. But the 21 Republicans who voted

``no'' drew immediate condemnation from some of their

colleagues, and the vote underscored the lingering tensions

in Congress amid efforts by some GOP lawmakers to whitewash

the events of that day.

Rep. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-Va.) called the ``no''

votes ``a sad commentary on the @HouseGOP,'' while Rep. Adam

Kinzinger (R-Ill.) declared, ``How you can vote no to this is

beyond me.''

``Then again, denying an insurrection is as well,''

Kinzinger, a vocal critic of former president Donald Trump,

said in a tweet. ``To the brave Capitol (and DC metro PD)

thank you. To the 21: they will continue to defend your right

to vote no anyway.''

In an interview on CNN Tuesday night, Rep. Gerald E.

Connolly (D-Va.) called the 21 ``no'' votes ``a new low for

this crowd.''

``They voted to overturn an election. But in their vote

today, they kind of sealed the deal of basically affiliating

with the mob,'' Connolly said. ``They now are part of the

insurrectionist mob. They brought enormous disrepute and

dishonor on themselves in not honoring the brave men and

women who defended the Capitol of the United States--

everybody in it, but also defending the symbol of democracy

in the world, not just here in the United States.''

In March, when an initial version of the legislation was

brought to the House floor, a dozen Republicans voted against

the measure. Many of those who voted ``no'' said they

objected to the use of the term ``insurrectionists'' in the

resolution.

Those GOP lawmakers included Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.),

Thomas Massie (Ky.), Andy Harris (Md.), Lance Gooden (Tex.),

Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Louie

Gohmert (Tex.), Michael Cloud (Tex.), Andrew S. Clyde (Ga.),

Greg Steube (Fla.), Bob Good (Va.) and John Rose (Tenn.).

The House and Senate then remained in a standoff for three

months over whether to honor all law enforcement who

responded on Jan. 6 or to award the Congressional Gold Medal

to one officer in particular, Capitol Police Officer Eugene

Goodman, who single-handedly diverted an angry mob away from

the Senate chamber.

The Senate had already unanimously voted to give the Gold

Medal exclusively to Goodman. The medal, bestowed by

Congress, is a symbol of national appreciation for

distinguished achievements.

Ultimately, both chambers agreed to slightly modify the

House legislation. Four Gold Medals will be awarded: one for

the Capitol Police, one for the D.C. police, another for the

Smithsonian Institution and another to be displayed inside

the Capitol building along with a plaque that names all law

enforcement agencies who helped repel the rioters that day.

On Tuesday, Gooden, one of the 12 House Republicans who

voted against the legislation in March, voted in favor of the

new bill.

But the number of opposing votes grew, with 10 other House

Republicans switching their votes from ``yes'' to ``no.''

Those Republicans are Reps. Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Barry

Moore (Ala.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Matthew M. Rosendale

(Mont.), Chip Roy (Tex.), Paul A. Gosar (Ariz.), Warren

Davidson (Ohio), Scott Perry (Pa.), Jody Hice (Ga.) and Mary

Miller (Ill.).

Some of those who voted ``no'' on Tuesday said they

objected to the use of the words ``temple'' or

``insurrection'' in the resolution.

``I wouldn't call it an insurrection,'' Greene said,

according to Politico.

Some House Republicans, such as Clyde, have sought to

recast the violent mob's actions on Jan. 6 as little

different from a ``normal tourist visit'' to the Capitol.

Others have sought to play down that day's events in

different ways.

During the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, rioters

attempted to break into the House chamber, punching and

busting glass, resulting in the death of Ashli Babbitt, whom

police shot when she attempted to climb through a shattered

glass door.

Gosar has previously claimed that Babbitt had been

``executed''--even though she defied police warnings and the

officer who fatally shot her was cleared of any criminal

wrongdoing.

Gosar did so again Tuesday, claiming during a House hearing

that a Capitol Police officer was ``lying in wait'' for

Babbitt and that she was ``executed,'' Politico reported.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who was ousted from House

Republican leadership over her criticism of Trump's role in

the Jan. 6 insurrection, denounced Gosar's remarks Tuesday

evening.

Madam Speaker, you heard that right: 21 of our colleagues across the aisle opposed a simple bill honoring the heroes of January 6; officers who now bear physical and psychological scars from that day because they fought to protect us in the Capitol. It is disgraceful. Yet, nothing about that from the other side of the aisle in terms of just how disgraceful that was.

You can talk politics, but if you want to talk about the substance of these bills, then do so and acknowledge what they are. They are bills that will help make our community safer. They are bills that, quite frankly--I should also point out that I think all but one of the bills is the same as they were in July.

I am not quite sure what the fuss over the fact that we are bringing these things up right now is all about. They are good bills that will help make our community safer. Look, I trust that we pass the rule. Some thoughtful Republicans will vote in favor of some of them or all of them.

If you don't believe that this is an appropriate thing to do, then you can vote ``no.'' That is your right, and you can go home and explain it to your constituents.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, just for the record, because I think it is important to have an accurate record, the text of three of these bills has been available for over a month. Even the manager's amendment on the VICTIM Act of 2022, which the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings) has introduced has been available for almost a month.

Again, the only one talking about politics is the gentlewoman from Minnesota, but I guess that is all they have.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of the VICTIM Act of 2022 from the National Association of Police Organizations, from the National Fraternal Order of Police, from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, from the National Police Foundation, all in support of the VICTIM Act.

National Association of

Police Organizations, Inc.,

Alexandria, VA, June 14, 2022.

Hon. Jerrold Nadler,

Chair, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jim Jordan,

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Jordan: On behalf

of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO),

representing over 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers

across the United States, I am writing to advise you of our

support for the Violent Incident Clearance and Technological

Investigative Methods (VICTIM) Act, H.R. 5768, and thank the

Committee for considering this legislation.

Our nation's cities and communities are experiencing a

historic rise in violent crime. Murders and non-fatal

shootings are going unresolved at higher rates as law

enforcement agencies do not have the officers and resources

to dedicate to improving clearance rates for these horrendous

crimes. The VICTIM Act will help address this issue by

supplying much needed grant funding to agencies to fill,

replenish, train, and support their detective and homicide

personnel. Through this legislation, law enforcement will be

able to focus on solving these violent crimes that have such

a detrimental impact on our communities and improve the

services that they render to victims.

We urge the Committee to join us in support of the VICTIM

Act and we look forward to working with you to ensure law

enforcement agencies have the support and resources necessary

to serve and protect our communities.

Sincerely,

William J. Johnson, Esq.,

Executive Director.

Madam Speaker, I would respectfully suggest to my colleague that they are supporting this legislation not because of politics, they are supporting it because they think it is actually good for our communities and will make our communities safer.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Forbes article titled ``Trump Loyalists' Calls To Defund the FBI, and Other Hypocrisies.''

[From Forbes, Aug. 12, 2022]

Trump Loyalists' Calls To Defund the FBI, and Other Hypocrisies

(By Shaun Harper)

Federal Bureau of Investigation agents executed a warrant

to search former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago

estate in Palm Beach, Florida this week. They were reportedly

looking for classified documents that weren't supposed to

leave the White House during the presidential transition.

Materials for which the FBI was looking apparently have

national security implications. In a press conference

yesterday, Attorney General Merrick Garland said he

``personally approved'' the search of Trump's home.

Shockingly and ironically, many Trump loyalists are calling

for the FBI to be defunded.

Following the police-executed murders of George Floyd and

Breonna Taylor in 2020, Black Lives Matter activists and

other Americans called for a defunding of police departments

across the country. Trump, most of his supporters, and

several others fiercely rejected this proposal. They praised

law enforcement officers and advanced what became known as

the ``Blue Lives Matter'' campaign. There was occasional

acknowledgment that a small number of bad apples sometimes

engage in bad behaviors. But systemic racism in policing?

Absolutely not. Opponents of the defund the police movement

loudly applauded the bravery, sacrifice, and integrity of law

enforcement officers.

Trump supporters who opposed defunding the police two years

ago are now calling for the FBI, a law enforcement agency, to

be defunded. Among them is Florida Republican congressional

candidate Anthony Sabatini, who in a CNN interview deemed the

FBI ``totally useless.'' He also wants FBI agents to be

arrested.

Garland, our nation's top cop, ``needs to be

assassinated,'' one person who may (or may not) be a Trump

supporter tweeted. This is just one of many social media

posts this week calling for violence against the Attorney

General and the FBI. Ricky Shiffer, an armed man who

allegedly fired into an FBI office building with a nail gun

and was armed with an AR-15-style rifle, was killed following

a car chase and standoff with law enforcement officers in

Cincinnati yesterday. Shiffer was allegedly part of pro-Trump

extremist groups that attacked the U.S. Capitol last year.

The hypocrisy over opposing defunding the police in 2020,

but calling for the FBI to be defunded now, is clear--though

not at all atypical. Trump loyalists have done versions of

this before.

``Lock her up,'' they chanted, as 2016 Democratic

Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was accused of storing

classified information on private, unencrypted email servers

in her home. Paradoxically, a version of this is why FBI

agents searched Trump's Florida estate this week.

The same group that reached determinations of Clinton's

guilt before, during, and after the investigation of her

swiftly determined that the FBI is wrong about Trump and

should therefore be defunded.

Another example are the ``My Body, My Choice'' posters that

many Trump supporters carried during rallies held throughout

the pandemic to oppose masking and vaccine mandates. That

phrase had been long used in pro-choice demonstrations. Most

Trump supporters aren't pro-choice, right?

The opposition of President Barack Obama nominating Merrick

Garland for the Supreme Court seat that became vacant eight

months prior to the 2016 election is a third example of

hypocrisy. Trump supporters and other GOP members

successfully argued that an outgoing president shouldn't have

the authority to nominate a new justice to the Court with so

little time remaining in his tenure. Yet, many of those same

politicians and other conservatives were fully on board with

Trump nominating Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court just

38 days before the 2020 presidential election.

And then there is the racialized double standard that

played out in the January 6 Capitol Insurrection. On June 1,

2020, a group of mostly peaceful demonstrators gathered near

the White House to protest George Floyd's murder. They killed

no one and did no damage to the White House or any other

federal building. But Trump still called in the National

Guard to aggressively remove them from the streets. His

supporters defended the president's decision. Just six months

later, hundreds of angry Trump loyalists, most of them white,

violently attacked the U.S. Capitol. Their actions resulted

in five deaths and the injuries of 140 law enforcement

officers.

The inescapably obvious role that race played in the

January 6 insurrection hasn't been talked about much, if at

all, in the recent congressional hearings. Had Black

Americans attacked the Capitol, I am certain that Trump

supporters, as well as other conservatives and liberals

alike, would have reached near-unanimous agreement on what

happened that day and the necessary legal repercussions. I

also remain convinced that most Black protestors would have

been immediately killed had they scaled and otherwise

violently entered any federal building, let alone the one in

which Vice President Mike Pence and congresspersons were

meeting at the time. Trump and his loyalists surely would've

argued those Black insurrectionists deserved whatever law

enforcement officers did to them that day, hence the

hypocrisy.

Madam Speaker, I remind my Republican colleagues that just last month a number of them openly and unabashedly messaged around defunding and dismantling the FBI. Some even sold campaign merchandise with that tagline. Let that sink in, I would say to my colleagues.

In any event, pass the rule. Let's have the debate on these bills. If you want to promote safer communities, then you will support them. If you want to just do politics as usual, then you will follow the lead of my colleague from Minnesota and vote against them.

Madam Speaker, these are good bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for conceding that the text of three of the bills was available for a month. I am glad we could set the record straight on that.

The second thing I will say is that at least two of these bills have bipartisan cosponsorship. The VICTIM Act has four Republican cosponsors. The Invest to Protect Act has 24 Republican cosponsors. Maybe they didn't get the memo that they are supposed to put politics ahead of people, but the bottom line is they are cosponsors of this. I would expect, unless their arms are twisted, that they will vote for the bills on final passage.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 101 human rights, civil rights, racial justice, religiously affiliated, and gun safety organizations who wrote in support of Congressman Horsford's bill, H.R. 4118, the Break the Cycle of Violence Act. I think that is worth noting.

July 30, 2021.

We the undersigned 101 human rights, civil rights, racial

justice, religiously affiliated and gun safety organizations

write in support of the Break the Cycle of Violence Act (S.

2275/H.R. 4118). We urge you to swiftly pass the Break the

Cycle of Violence Act to provide at least $5 billion in

federal funding over eight years for community gun violence

prevention programs.

Gun violence in the U.S. is a crisis, disproportionately

impacting Black and Brown communities nationwide. Gun

homicides are the leading cause of death among Black men ages

15-34 and the second-leading cause of death for Latino men

and boys of the same age range. Black men are more than ten

times as likely to be the victims of gun homicides than white

men. In 2019, 14,414 people died from gun homicides in the

U.S. Nearly 60 percent--8,607--of gun homicide deaths were

Black people. Yet Black people represent just 14.7 percent of

the U.S. population.

With a surge in gun sales in the wake of COVID-19,

shootings are increasing across the U.S., contributing to the

crisis. According to the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, there were 39,707 deaths in 2019, the most recent

year for which government data is available with 14,414 of

those being gun homicides. The Gun Violence Archive, a non-

profit organization that tracks and documents gun injuries

and deaths, published data in May 2021 indicating that the

number of deaths in 2020 had risen to a staggering 43,554

with 19,398 of those being gun homicides.

Evidence-based, community violence prevention programs have

been proven to reduce gun violence and save lives, while

investing resources in impacted communities. There are three

well-established models of gun violence prevention programs

that have proven successful in reducing violence, some of

which are referenced in both President Biden's executive

actions and guidance and in the Break the Cycle of Violence

Act. The Group Violence Intervention (``GVI'') strategy, a

form of problem-oriented policing (as opposed to traditional

``incident-driven'' policing), was first used in the

enormously successful Operation Ceasefire in Boston in the

mid-1990s where it was associated with a 61 percent reduction

in youth homicide. The program has now been implemented in a

wide variety of cities with consistently impressive results.

An analysis of more than 20 GVI programs showed a significant

reduction in firearm violence. The most successful of these

programs have reduced violent crime in cities by an average

of 30 percent and improved relations between law enforcement

officers and the neighborhoods they serve. The GVI model has

a remarkably strong track record: a documented association

with homicide reductions of 30 to 60 percent.

A study of the Cure Violence model, first implemented in

Chicago, found that its implementation in several targeted

districts in Chicago was associated with a 38 percent greater

decrease in homicides and a 15 percent greater decrease in

shootings, compared to districts that did not receive the

intervention. A 2018 evaluation of Philadelphia's Cure

Violence Program found that shootings decreased

significantly, compared to other matched comparison areas.

An example of Hospital Based Violence Intervention, the

third model of evidence-based violence prevention programs,

is the San Francisco Wraparound Project, first introduced in

2005. In its first six years of operation the Wraparound

Project was associated with a fourfold decrease in injury

recidivism (re-injury from gun-shot wounds) rates. Moreover,

studies have shown that this form of intervention saves

hospitals money by preventing future injuries, both for the

patient and for anyone the patient may have considered

retaliating against.

Investment, training, and support for culturally

appropriate violence prevention workers with lived experience

in impacted communities has proven successful in cities

across the U.S., yet lack of political will has resulted in

many advocates and community leaders working with limited or

no resources.

For example, Lamar Johnson of B.R.A.V.E. Chicago, said:

``Our after-school program is a non-profit- we run it through

the church--and the funding comes mostly from private donors.

The majority of the city's budget goes to law enforcement--

and that's not just Chicago, that's most cities. We've met

with mayors' administrations so many times and presented our

case, but they don't give us funding. The whole system is so

broken, because the focus is on the criminal justice system.

If someone is addicted to drugs, they go to jail before they

go to the hospital to get treatment. It's the mindset.''

Recognizing the effectiveness of these programs and the

heroic people like Lamar who lead them, President Biden, on

March 31, 2021, announced his intention to include $5 billion

for gun violence prevention programs in the American Jobs

Plan. This builds on the efforts of Senator Booker and

Representative Horsford to pass the Break the Cycle of

Violence Act, first introduced in the 116th Congress. If

passed, it would provide funding for federal grants to

communities that experience 20 or more homicides per year and

have a homicide rate at least twice the national average, or

communities that demonstrate a unique and compelling need for

additional resources to address gun and group-related

violence. Each grant awarded would be renewable over five

years, and funds would be commensurate with the scope of the

proposal and the demonstrated need.

While it is impossible to place a dollar amount on a

person's life or the cost of that loss to their families,

communities, and loved ones, the astronomical financial

impact of gun violence on U.S. society cannot be overlooked.

According to a 2020 study by physicians and researchers, gun

violence costs the U.S. healthcare system $170 billion per

year. The Health Alliance for Violence Intervention estimates

it would cost an estimated $827 million per year, or $5.36

billion over eight years, to fund sustained and adequate

violence intervention programs in the 48 U.S. cities with the

highest rates of violence--hence the call on Congress to pass

at least $5 billion over eight years for community gun

violence prevention programs.

With sustained investment into gun violence prevention

programs and a national comprehensive strategy aimed at

reducing gun violence, particularly in Black and Brown

communities, Congress can make inroads to reducing gun

violence in all communities and ensure the right of everyone

to live free from the threat of gun violence. Congress has an

obligation to take action to invest in communities ravaged by

gun violence and to make efforts to prevent gun violence and

protect the lives and safety of all individuals, particularly

in the face of evidence that the 2020 gun-related injury and

death tolls in the U.S. have been the highest in decades.

We urge Congress to act urgently to pass the Break the

Cycle of Violence Act to ensure at least $5 billion in

federal funding over eight years for community gun violence

prevention programs that save lives.

Sincerely,

Amnesty International USA, Community Justice Action Fund,

ACLU, African American Ministers in Action, Ban Assault

Weapons Now!, Brady, BRAVE Youth Leaders, Ceasefire Oregon,

Ceasefire Pennsylvania, Center for American Progress, The

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, CommonSpirit Health,

Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes and the CSA-USA

Associate Community Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph

of Peace, CT Against Gun Violence.

Dominican Sisters of Houston, Dominican Sisters--Grand

Rapids, Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa, Everytown for Gun

Safety, First Unitarian Universalist Church of Houston,

Franciscan Action Network, Franciscan Peace Center,

Franciscan Sisters of the Sacred Heart, Generation Progress,

Giffords, GPEC-ICHV, Grandmothers Against Gun Violence, Grey

Nuns of the Sacred Heart, Gun Violence Prevention PAC

Illinois, The Health Alliance for Violence Intervention, Holy

Spirit Missionary Sisters, USA-JPIC.

Honor with Action Coalition, Houston League of Business &

Professional Women, IHM Sisters--Justice, Peace and

Sustainability Office, Indivisible Northern Nevada, Institute

of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Intercommunity Peace and Justice

Center, Iowans for Gun Safety, Jewish Women International,

www.Journey4ward.org, Leadership

Conference of Women Religious, Leadership Team of the

Felician Sisters of North America, March for Our Lives DC,

Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, Massachusetts Coalition

to Prevent Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action.

NAACP, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence,

Newtown Action Alliance, Newtown Junior Action Alliance,

Nonviolence Institute of Rhode Island, North Carolina Council

of Churches, North Carolinians Against Gun Violence,

Northwest Coalition for Responsible Investment, Not My

Generation, Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, People for a

Safer Society, Presentation Sisters, San Francisco, CA,

Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, Region VI Coalition

for Responsible Investment, Religious of the Sacred Heart of

Mary, Western American Area.

Restorations Ministries, Inc., Rhode Island Coalition

Against Gun Violence, Sacred Ground Ministries, Saint Mark's

Episcopal Capitol Hill DC, San Diegans for Gun Violence

Prevention, Sandy Hook Promise, School Sisters of Notre Dame-

Atlantic Midwest Office, School Sisters of Notre Dame,

Central Pacific Province, Sisters of Bon Secours, USA,

Sisters of Charity, BVM, Sisters of Charity Federation,

Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Congregational Leadership,

Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Western Province Leadership,

Sisters of Charity of Saint Augustine, Sisters of Mercy of

the American Justice Team.

Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur USA, Sisters of St. Dominic

of Blauvelt, New York, Sisters of St. Dominic Racine, WI,

Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi, Sisters of St. Joseph of

Boston, Sisters of Saint Joseph of Chestnut Hill,

Philadelphia, PA, Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, LA,

Sisters of St. Joseph of NW PA, Sisters of St. Mary of Namur,

Sisters of the Holy Cross, Sisters of the Humility of Mary,

Squirrel Hill Stands Against Gun Violence, Stop Handgun

Violence, Students Demand Action, Survivors Lead.

Team Enough, Trinity Health, Union of Sisters of the

Presentation of BVM, USA Unit, United Church of Christ,

Justice and Local Church Ministries, Ursuline Sisters of

Cleveland, Ursuline Sisters of Louisville, KY, Ursuline

Sisters of Mount Saint Joseph, Wheaton Franciscans JPIC

Office, Youth Advocate Programs, Inc, Youth Over Guns.

Madam Speaker, again I inserted earlier an article talking about the Republicans that would not even honor the men and women of the Capitol Police who defended us on January 6. I continue to believe that that was a disgraceful moment.

But when the gentlewoman says that somehow they will always stand on behalf and honor members of law enforcement--let me just read a few quotations here. Representative Jeff Duncan from South Carolina:

``The FBI has proven time and again that it is corrupt to the core. At what point do we abolish the Bureau and start over?''

Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona says:

``I will support a complete dismantling and elimination of the Democrat brownshirts known as the FBI. This is too much for our Republic to withstand.''

Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado:

``The GOP majority must defund all forms of tyranny throughout Biden's government. @FBI.''

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia:

``Impeach Merrick Garland and defund the corrupt FBI. End political persecution and hold those accountable that abuse their positions of power to persecute their political enemies, while ruining our country. This shouldn't happen in America. Republicans must force it to stop.''

On Marjorie Taylor Greene's website, she is selling defund the FBI T- shirts, so it is my friends on the other side of the aisle who want to defund law enforcement, who want to defund the police.

There is an old saying: Physician, heal thyself. You ought to take that to heart. The bottom line here is that these are bills that will help improve safety in our communities. These are bills that local officials, local law enforcement organizations, want. The only people who don't want them are my friends on the other side of the aisle.

If you want to vote no, vote no. But I suspect that some on the minority side understand what their communities want, and they don't want politics as usual. They don't want people putting politics over people. What they want is help for their communities.

You have a chance. You can either vote yes to help the communities or vote no. That is your choice.

Madam Speaker, I think these bills are good bills. We should support the rule. We should support the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Minnesota said, if I am quoting it right, ``They expect us to believe they support our law enforcement.'' I will be honest with you. I don't expect my colleagues to believe anything, but I expect them to read the bills and to decide whether or not, if you pass these bills, they will help make our communities safer or not.

The gentleman from Florida didn't like three of the bills, but he likes one of the bills. The beauty of this rule is you will be able to vote on all of them, and you can vote no on the ones you don't like, and you can vote yes on the ones that you do like.

When we talk about how law enforcement has been under attack, I don't want to hear any lectures from my friends on the other side of the aisle. I went through a whole litany of Republican Members who were calling for defunding the FBI.

My friends have a Member on the Republican side who actually is selling defund the FBI T-shirts on her web page. It says, ``Defund the FBI.'' It is defund the police. My colleagues don't seem to care much about that.

I will go back to something else that I still can't get out of my mind, and that was the vote on awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to the United States Capitol Police officers who saved the lives of everybody who was here that day, and 21 Republican Members voted no. That is a disgrace. That has brought shame on this institution.

So, don't lecture any of us about our support for law enforcement when 21 of the Members on the other side of the aisle voted no on a Congressional Gold Medal to honor the brave men and women who protected us in this Chamber on that day. Enough.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Guardian titled ``'Republicans are defunding the police: FOX News anchor stumps Congressman.''

[From the Guardian, June 28, 2021]

Republicans Are Defunding the Police--Fox News Anchor Stumps

Congressman

(By Martin Pengelly)

The Fox News anchor Chris Wallace made headlines of his own

on Sunday, by pointing out to a senior Republican that he and

the rest of his party recently voted against $350bn in

funding for law enforcement.

``Can't you make the argument that it's you and the

Republicans who are defunding the police?'' Wallace asked Jim

Banks, the head of the House Republican study committee.

The congressman was the author of a Fox News column in

which he said Democrats were responsible for spikes in

violent crime.

``There is overwhelming evidence,'' Banks wrote,

``connecting the rise in murders to the violent riots last

summer''--a reference to protests over the murder of George

Floyd which sometimes produced looting and violence--``and

the defund the police movement. Both of which were supported,

financially and rhetorically, by the Democratic party and the

Biden administration.''

Joe Biden does not support any attempt to ``defund the

police'', a slogan adopted by some on the left but which

remains controversial and which the president has said

Republicans have used to ``beat the living hell'' out of

Democrats.

On Fox News Sunday, Banks repeatedly attacked the so-called

``Squad'' of young progressive women in the House and said

Democrats ``stigmatised'' law enforcement and helped

criminals.

``Let me push back on that a little bit,'' Wallace said.

``Because [this week] the president said that the central

part in his anti-crime package is the $350bn in the American

Rescue Plan, the Covid relief plan that was passed.''

Covid relief passed through Congress in March, under rules

that meant it did not require Republican votes. It did not

get a single one.

Asked if that meant it was ``you and the Republicans who

are defunding the police'', Banks dodged the question.

Wallace said: ``No, no, sir, respectfully--wait, sir,

respectfully ... I'm asking you, there's $350bn in this

package the president says can be used for policing . . .

``Congressman Banks, let me finish, and I promise I will

give you a chance to answer. The president is saying cities

and states can use this money to hire more police officers,

invest in new technologies and develop summer job training

and recreation programs for young people. Respectfully, I've

heard your point about the last year, but you and every other

Republican voted against this $350bn.''

Turning a blind eye to Wallace's question, Banks said: ``If

we turn a blind eye to law and order, and a blind eye to

riots that occurred in cities last summer, and we take police

officers off the street, we're inevitably going to see crime

rise.''

Wallace asked if Banks could support any gun control

legislation. Banks said that if Biden was ``serious about

reducing violent crime in America'', he should ``admonish the

radical voices in the Democrat [sic] party that have

stigmatised police officers and law enforcement''.

Despite working for Republicans' favoured broadcaster,

Wallace is happy to hold their feet to the fire, as grillings

of Donald Trump and Kevin McCarthy have shown.

He has also attracted criticism, for example for failing to

control Trump during a chaotic presidential debate last year

which one network rival called ``a hot mess, inside a

dumpster fire, inside a train wreck''.

Last year, Wallace told the Guardian: ``I do what I do and

I'm sitting there during the week trying to come up with the

best guests and the best show I possibly can and I'm not

sitting there thinking about how do we fit in some media

commentary.

``We're not there to try to one-up the president or any

politician.''

Madam Speaker, if you look at the voting record of many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you will see few to none supported recent funding bills that also direct money toward supporting local law enforcement. If they think that we are on a crusade to defund the police, well, the last few years of funding the police say otherwise.

Madam Speaker, I also include in the Record a Rolling Stone article titled `` `Back-The-Blue' Republicans Bail on Moment of Silence for Fallen Capitol Police Officers.''

[From Rolling Stone, Jan. 6, 2022]

`Back-The-Blue' Republicans Bail on Moment of Silence for Fallen

Capitol Police Officers

(By Tim Dickinson)

The Republican Party holds itself as the champions of law

enforcement. They campaign on slogans of ``Back the Blue.''

They hold rallies flying the ``Thin Blue Line'' flag. They

purport to celebrate the cops who shield the nation from

violence and anarchy.

But when it came time to show up in the halls of Congress

for a remembrance of the sacrifices Capitol and Metropolitan

Police made defending our democracy from violence last Jan.

6, Republicans lawmakers didn't bother to show up. Only one

sitting Republican officeholder showed up, Wyoming Rep. Liz

Cheney. She was accompanied by her father Dick, the former

vice president.

On that dark day one year ago, the ``Thin Blue Line'' was

not a metaphor. Police put their bodies and lives in harm's

way, attempting to blockade the joint session of Congress

from the violent mob of Trump supporters who sought to stop

the peaceful transfer of power after a lawful election. These

cops were beaten, tased, tear gassed, dragged down steps, and

crushed in doorways. More than 140 were injured in the

insurrection, and five officer deaths (including subsequent

suicides) have been linked to the violence and trauma of Jan.

6.

``I want to acknowledge our fallen heroes of that day,''

said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leading a House session marking

the anniversary of the attack. ``Now I ask all members to

rise in a moment of silence in their memory.''

As the officials rose, the visual of a nearly empty GOP

side of the aisle was chilling, as Sen. Chris Murphy of

Connecticut noted on Twitter:

At the moment of silence for the Capitol Police officers

who died, there were only two Republicans who showed up.

Rep. Lynn Cheney. And her father. The 80 year old former

Vice President.

An extraordinary image of where this country's politics are

right now.

--Chris Murphy January 6, 2022

Speaking to reporters at the Capitol, the former vice

president said he attended the House session to mark ``an

important historical event.'' Cheney elaborated that he was

``deeply disappointed we don't have better leadership in the

Republican Party to restore the Constitution.'' The swipe at

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and House minority

leader Kevin McCarthy--who could not be bothered to attend

the remembrance, and who have done little to combat Trump's

destructive and ongoing lies about the 2020 election--was

unmistakable.

Rep. Cheney's attendance was not surprising. She is the top

Republican on the bipartisan congressional committee

investigating the events of Jan. 6, and has been consistent

and unabashed in her criticism of Donald Trump, blaming him

directly for the violence at the Capitol. Cheney has been

treated as a pariah by Trump--who has called her a ``bitter,

horrible human being''--and was ousted from GOP House

leadership earlier this year for refusing to kowtow to the

Dear Leader.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, the other Republican on the Jan. 6

committee, is expecting the birth of a child and could not

attend. ``Wish I could be there too, but I'm on baby watch,''

he tweeted. ``I am in spirit.''

Madam Speaker, I find it hard to believe that someone says they back the police when they don't even do the bare minimum and show up and remember those who fought to save the lives of our very democracy and every single person in this Chamber that day.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the gentlewoman for that closing statement. I keep hearing the Democrats want to defund the police, so here we are on the House floor talking about creating grant programs to help keep communities safer. Now the Republicans are the ones who are talking about defunding the police. Do you see the irony?

Democrats actually have solutions in these four bills; real ideas that have been publicly available for months to make our streets safer and reduce crime. Republicans are the ones talking about defunding and abolishing the FBI.

I will remind my colleagues that you have Republican Members who are raising campaign funds by selling Defund the FBI T-shirts. Want to talk about disgusting?

No mention of that from my colleagues. Fundraising off of selling T- shirts to defund the police; that is what my friends are doing.

Again, I go back to my point earlier. I still can't get over that 21 Republicans couldn't even vote to give a Congressional Gold Medal to the men and women who defended us on January 6. I mean, talk about disgusting. Couldn't show up on the House floor for a moment of silence to honor those police who lost their lives as a result of what happened on January 6. Talk about disgusting.

We have ideas here that I think are worth bipartisan support. Some of this stuff I think should have been brought up under suspension. But, again, my friends put politics ahead of people. We want to put people ahead of politics.

Take the VICTIM Act, H.R. 5768. This establishes a grant program in the Department of Justice to help State, Tribal, and local law enforcement agencies improve their clearance rates for homicides and nonfatal shootings. To me, that seems common sense.

The Break the Cycle of Violence Act, H.R. 4118, creates a nationwide strategy to make our communities safer by addressing both the symptoms and root causes of violence.

The Invest to Protect Act, H.R. 6448, makes targeted investments to ensure that local police departments have the training they need to keep our communities safe.

The Mental Health Justice Act, H.R. 8542; one in four fatal police encounters ends the life of an individual with severe mental illness. The Mental Health Justice Act makes it easier to send trained mental health professionals to respond to individuals experiencing a mental health crisis.

To me, these are basic, commonsense bills that I think the overwhelming majority of people in this country, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, would all support.

You want to talk about not supporting our law enforcement. Republicans voted against $350 billion in the American Rescue Plan that could be used for policing. So please don't lecture us about defunding the police. Republicans only seem to support law enforcement when they are looking for votes. That is a common theme here, when it is politically convenient for them. It is really shameful, and it is cynical. It is why people get frustrated with Washington because everything has a political motivation.

On stuff that we all should come together on, my friends on the other side of the aisle always come up with an issue, an excuse not to do the right thing. You don't have to agree on everything to agree on something, and this is something we ought to agree on and we ought to come together on and get it done.

These are good bills, Madam Speaker, bipartisan bills. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Representative and my colleague on the Rules Committee from Massachusetts for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this morning we are here to debate a rule providing for a series of bills that have been noticed multiple times going back as far as July. But we in the Rules Committee were given 1 hour to consider the changes that have been negotiated--negotiated internally-- within the majority conference with no minority input. Presumably, the changes were made at the behest of the leftwing defund-the-police activists who, unfortunately, have become the loudest voice in their party.

It seems to me that these bills are a very transparent response to the negative reaction Democrats have experienced as a result of these continued calls while crime is understandably skyrocketing.

The VICTIM Act creates a new Federal grant program to help local governments cut down on homicide and nonfatal shooting backlogs. The funds can be used for hiring and training detectives and processing personnel, upgrading or replacing investigative or evidence-processing technology, and improving resources for victims and their families.

First of all, these programs largely replicate existing programs managed by the Department of Justice. This, again, reminds us of why we have been called to this debate. It is not to solve a problem. It is so that my Democrat colleagues can look like they are solving problems. Furthermore, programs like this would not be needed if the left had not prioritized defunding the police over keeping our country's citizens safe.

This bill effectively bails out governments like Austin, Philadelphia, and Rochester, New York, that decreased police budgets over the years.

The Invest to Protect Act expands COPS grant programs to include police departments with fewer than 125 law enforcement officers. Funds may be used for training, body cameras, signing and retention bonuses, and providing access to mental health services.

Just to point out, there is a clause in this bill that explicitly says that the Attorney General can give preference to activities that have nothing to do with recruitment or retention.

Madam Speaker, the left has been actively fighting against law enforcement, and, as a result, the American people are angry. They are angry about the increases in violent crimes across the country, and they are angry about repeat offenders being released to commit even more serious crimes.

They are angry that even after making these concerns clear, Democrats have been ignoring them in favor of an extreme anti-police agenda. This is a last-ditch effort for them to act like they are not deeply out of touch with the country, coming just in time to see the results from election polling.

This is an effort to sweep under the rug that my colleagues in the majority will seek private security while simultaneously seeking cuts to police budgets. My colleagues in the majority want to distract from the statements of their Members that apparently defunding the police is only one step toward fully dismantling police departments.

My colleagues want to distract from the fact that even some of the most senior officials of the Biden administration are echoing or applauding efforts to reduce budgets of law enforcement. Despite this hollow effort, I am confident the American people see

right through this charade and view this for what it is, a political exercise.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, I ask Members to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe it is two bills that are different, but we can check on that just to make sure that we understand what is going on.

To further illustrate the political charade, my colleagues in the majority have blocked any effort to include thoughtful policy solutions proposed by House Republicans.

In the Rules Committee, I even offered a motion to consider a bill I proposed earlier this year to support our law enforcement's efforts to train our next generation of peace officers. H.R. 7421, the Law Enforcement Education Grant Program Act of 2022, was a product of discussions with Minnesota State patrol officers and other members of the local community regarding the difficulty of not only hiring new officers but even finding potential recruits.

Police departments across the country are experiencing a serious shortage of officers. This lack of qualified officers has led to a drastic increase in crime. We need to invest in recruiting a number of well-trained and highly educated police officers to help keep our communities safe.

This bill provides education grants of up to $4,000 per year, not exceeding $16,000 total, to a student who is pursuing their first degree in a law enforcement or criminal justice-related field. As a requirement of receiving the grant, the applicant must commit to serving as a full-time law enforcement officer for 4 years within an 8- year period of completing their studies.

In order to instill integrity of the program and prevent abuse, if an applicant fails to complete their service requirements, the grants will be converted back into a loan and the applicant will be required to pay it back.

In order to ensure flexibility over what education program best fits the student, the grants are distributed directly to candidates, not educational institutions. In addition, the curriculum at an institution must have been approved by the State's Police Officer Standard and Training Board, or the related State agency.

Finally, there are exemptions from the clawback bill for officers who are injured in the line of duty and cannot serve out their 4-year requirement. These are the types of solutions that the majority refuses to even debate or bring forward under this rule. It further supports my argument that this is

simply political theatre, covering up for years of dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric that has put law enforcement in harm's way time and time again.

I would just like to add that there are many, many good and positive Republican proposals out there that the majority refuses to even consider in committee, and this is just one example of those.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Massachusetts says, oh, these were available; these were available for over a month.

Then my question would be: Then why the emergency meeting yesterday? Why, with an hour's notice, the Rules Committee is called together to push these bills through, other than some kind of political charade to get these bills to the floor today at 9 o'clock in the morning with very little notice?

It seems to me that as much as he says there are no changes, and that they have been available, still, an emergency meeting with an hour's notice at 3:25 in the afternoon yesterday, it seems like they are pushing things through without the notice that the American people and the Members of Congress deserve.

Our Nation's law enforcement officers put on a badge every day and bravely put themselves in harm's way to keep our communities safe. The past few years have been especially dangerous for America's police as a direct result of the Democrat-led defund the police movement, and their soft-on-crime policies.

Cities across the country have suffered a dramatic increase in crime. Carjacking and smash-and-grab robberies are now common. Last year, major cities broke their annual homicide records. The national rise in crime has devastating costs for the communities and, also, for local police.

In California, Kern County Deputy Sheriff Phillip Campas was killed in the line of duty after his SWAT team responded to a domestic violence call. He was a marine veteran and a dedicated father whose legacy of heroism will never be forgotten.

In New York, New York City Police Officer Vogel was seen running through Times Square toward an ambulance after saving a 4-year-old girl who had been struck by a stray bullet. The officer's bravery and quick thinking made all the difference in getting the girl to safety.

In Alabama, Wilcox County Constable Madison Nicholson, who had protected his community for over 40 years, was shot and killed in the line of duty when he and a sheriff's deputy were responding to a domestic disturbance.

Our police are under attack like never before. According to the FBI, more police officers were murdered in the line of duty during President Biden's first year in office than in any year since 1995. Many of them were killed in ambush-style or unprovoked attacks.

Not only have calls to defund, dismantle, or abolish the police that come from the activists, or even within the Halls of Congress, have created a more treacherous climate for officers, but it has also negatively impacted morale among the police.

Nationwide, law enforcement agencies are short 7 percent of filling budgeted positions, and retirements are up 45 percent. Law enforcement is our essential line of defense in maintaining law and order. They deserve America's and Congress' full support.

House Republicans are grateful to our law enforcement officers for their service to our communities and understand the incredible commitment they make in choosing to wear the uniform. We will always stand with our men and women in blue and their families.

House Democrats would like to use these bills to convince the American people of the same, but Americans know and understand.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, for years now, progressives in the media have disparaged law enforcement at every opportunity, from the defund the police movement to agenda-driven liberal district attorneys in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and New York. There is a clear strategic effort on the part of Democrats to demean police officers nationwide at the expense of law and order.

In 2021, according to the Fraternal Order of Police, 346 officers were shot, 63 fatally. Additionally, there were 103 ambush-style attacks on law enforcement, a 115 percent increase from 2020.

Even as members of the Democratic Party are victims of increasing crimes, they are unwavering in their aggression on those in uniform who stand on the front lines and every day protect and serve our communities. Rather than acknowledging and thanking these brave men and women, Democrats have repeatedly gone out of their way to put the blame on those in uniform.

They may claim otherwise, but here are the words straight from their mouths. If we need to make sure that we are quoting people today, I am more than willing to do that.

`` . . . Police in our country are more concerned with protecting white supremacy than serving the communities that pay their salaries.''--Representative Bowman.

``Defunding the police isn't radical. It is real.''--Representative Cori Bush.

``The truth is that abolishing ICE isn't that radical. We reorganize government all the time, creating some agencies and eliminating others. Nevertheless, it is a bold proposal. It is time to be bold. It is time to abolish ICE.''--Representative Mark Pocan.

``The defund the police movement is one of reimagining the current police system to build an entity that does not violate us, while relocating funds to invest in community services.''--Representative Ilhan Omar.

``Defunding police means defunding police.''--Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

``We are spending too much money on the police. There should be substantial cuts to the police budget and a reallocation of those funds.''--Representative Jerry Nadler.

Now, they expect us to believe they support our law enforcement. They think that putting these bills forward will make the American people believe they care about law enforcement. It seems that it has taken them until now to see how out of touch they are with the American people.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, potentially, my colleague from Massachusetts didn't hear some of the quotes that I read earlier, many of them talking about ``defunding police means defunding police,'' Representative Ocasio-Cortez.

I can go back through them, or I certainly am more than happy to provide them in writing to my colleague, but I just wanted to remind him that, yes, there were many quotes that I read regarding Democrats and defunding the police.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two articles, one titled ``Even Democrats are now admitting `Defund the Police' was a massive mistake,'' and another titled ``'Defund the Police' still haunts Democrats.''

[From CNN Politics, Nov. 5, 2021]

Even Democrats Are Now Admitting `Defund the Police' Was a Massive

Mistake

(By Chris Cillizza)

(CNN).--On Tuesday, a proposal to fundamentally restructure

the Minneapolis police department in the wake of George

Floyd's death in 2020 was soundly defeated, a setback that

even many Democrats acknowledged could be laid at the feet of

the ``defund the police'' movement that some within the party

embraced last summer.

``I think allowing this moniker, `Defund the police,' to

ever get out there, was not a good thing,'' Minnesota

Attorney General Keith Ellison (D) told The Washington Post's

Dave Weigel on Thursday.

That's a remarkable turnaround from how politicians--in and

out of Minnesota--acted in the immediate aftermath of Floyd's

death and the summer of nationwide protests that followed.

Nine members of the Minneapolis City Council appeared at an

event in June 2020 in which they pledged that they would work

to dismantle the police force in the city. They did so on a

stage that featured large cutout letters spelling out

``Defund Police.''

``We committed to dismantling policing as we know it in the

city of Minneapolis and to rebuild with our community a new

model of public safety that actually keeps our community

safe,'' City, Council President Lisa Bender told CNN at the

time.

That message was picked up by some of the most liberal

members of Congress--from Minnesota's Ilhan Omar to

Michigan's Rashida Tlaib.

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, perhaps the best

known progressive in Congress, warned that dismissing calls

to defund the police--or, at the very least, to reconsider

the way police interact with a community--was a mistake. ``It

is not crazy for Black and brown communities to want what

White people have already given themselves and that is

funding your schools more than you fund criminalizing your

own kids,' she said.

Even as liberal members (and the activist community) were

pushing for the party to embrace the ``defund the police''

movement, others within the party were warning of the

political dangers inherent in the slogan.

``This movement today, some people tried to hijack it,''

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-South Carolina), the

highest ranking African American in Congress, warned his

party, according to reporting in Politico. ``Don't let

yourselves be drawn into the debate about defunding police

forces.''

Clyburn's warning proved prophetic. Then-President Donald

Trump seized on the issue during the 2020 campaign, casting

it as evidence that Democrats were out of touch with the

average person. ``LAW & ORDER, NOT DEFUND AND ABOLISH THE

POLICE.,'' Trump tweeted in June 2020. ``The Radical Left

Democrats have gone Crazy!'' And then this the following

month: ``Corrupt Joe Biden wants to defund our police. He may

use different words, but when you look at his pact with Crazy

Bernie, and other things, that's what he wants to do. It

would destroy America!''

Even as Trump and Republicans were working to make ``defund

the police'' a national issue (Joe Biden had made clear he

did not favor defunding), the Minnesota politicians who were

at the forefront of the ``defund'' movement were beginning to

back off in the face of rising crime in the city. As

Minnesota Public Radio reported in September 2020:

``Just months after leading an effort that would have

defunded the police department, City Council members at

Tuesday's work session pushed chief Medaria Arradondo to tell

them how the department is responding to the violence.

``The number of reported violent crimes, like assaults,

robberies and homicides are up compared to 2019, according to

MPD crime data. More people have been killed in the city in

the first nine months of 2020 than were slain in all of last

year. Property crimes, like burglaries and auto thefts, are

also up. Incidents of arson have increased 55 percent over

the total at this point in 2019.''

(The City Council had, months before, moved $1.1 million

from the police department to the health department.)

After several fits and starts, Question 2 was added to the

2021 ballot. Among its Provisions was replacing the Minnesota

police

department with a department of public safety, getting rid of

language that requires a minimum number of police officers to

be employed by the city and forcing the mayor to win the city

council's support for someone to run the new department.

While the vote was expected to be quite close, it was, in

fact, not. As CNN wrote of the results:

``The status quo-affirming result is a setback to both

citywide and national efforts to fundamentally reduce or

eliminate the role of police in America. Opponents of calls

to ``defund the police'' will point to the vote as fresh

evidence that the backlash to police abuse that fueled last

year's protests, which followed the killing of Floyd by then

Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Talk of curbing

police departments by cutting or limiting their resources has

run into a countervailing wall of concern over public safety

and waning support from early allies--including leading

Democrats who largely view it as political poison.''

The question now for Democrats is whether they totally

abandon efforts to remake policing in this country. (A

bipartisan police reform attempt failed in Congress earlier

this year.) Or if they continue on while doing their best to

leave the ``defund the police'' slogan behind them.

[From Roll Call, Apr. 27, 2022]

`Defund the Police' Still Haunts Democrats

(By David Winston)

It's becoming increasingly clear that after the economy,

crime is a hot-button issue driving voter sentiment in the

lead-up to the November elections. But despite voter-concern,

Democrats continue to be divided over the controversial

``defund the police'' mantra that has grabbed headlines for

the past two years, and it's beginning to hurt their

prospects for the fall elections.

The mixed messaging of party leaders versus the call to

defund by progressives, especially extreme comments by

members of the Squad, has become a costly roadblock to

retaining the House as voters lose confidence in Democrats'

ability to address rising violence across the country.

Even a cursory look at statements by Democratic leaders and

radical backbenchers opposed to increased funding of police

explains the party's dilemma.

On Feb. 13, George Stephanopoulos raised the issue of Rep.

Cori Bush's statements calling for defunding the police

during an interview with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. ``With all due

respect in the world to Cori Bush,'' she replied, ``that is

not the position of the Democratic Party.''

Pelosi then declared, ``Defund the police is dead.''

Two weeks later, in his State of the Union address,

President Biden called for increased funding for police: ``We

should all agree: The answer is not to defund the police. The

answer is to fund the police. Fund them. Fund them.''

Apparently, Squad member Bush didn't get the message. In a

tweet after the speech, she said, ``With all due respect, Mr.

President, you didn't mention saving Black lives once in this

speech. All our country has done is given more funding to

police. The result? 2021 set a record for fatal police

shootings. Defund the police. Invest in our communities.''

A month later, a gunman shot up a New York subway train,

and an inconvenient 2019 letter from Alexandria Ocasio-

Cortez, Jerrold Nadler and other liberal New York House

members resurfaced. The letter to then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo

opposed a plan to put 500 new Metropolitan Transportation

Authority officers in the subways to reduce crime.

But AOC was having none of it. She and her fellow members

wrote that the MTA funding for increased police presence in

the subways would be better spent on ``desperately needed

resources'' like ``subway, bus, maintenance, and service

improvements,'' telling Cuomo, ``The subway system is now

safer than before.''

Last week, Rep. Abigail Spanberger called defunding the

police ``a terrible idea,'' while a Politico story said, ``As

the midterm elections pick up, Democrats are calling for more

police funding and attempting to co-opt traditionally

Republican talking points on crime.''

``Defund the police'' may no longer be the position of the

Democratic Party, but when Cori Bush, AOC or any member of

the Squad weighs in on any issue, the Twittersphere lights up

like a cop car in hot pursuit. It seems the media can't get

enough of the Squad, and polling shows that this intraparty

fight over the issue of policing and crime has not only

become a major headache for Pelosi but is also taking a toll

on the Democrats' credibility.

When the electorate was asked in the Winning the Issues

(WTI) February survey if they believed that we need to defund

the police, only 21 percent believed the statement, while 64

percent did not. Independents were even more adamant that

defunding the police was a bad idea, coming in at an

overwhelming 12 percent for and 70 percent against.

Despite Biden and Pelosi's efforts to stem the bleeding by

offering up more funding to stop gun violence and invest in

community policing, the WTI research shows that Democrats are

losing the issue, with more voters believing that the

Democratic Party supports defunding the police than not by a

margin of 48 percent to 34 percent.

There are three main reasons for the Democrats' troubles on

this issue. First, there is widespread recognition of just

how serious rising crime is becoming, with 7 out of 10 voters

believing that across America, violent crime is escalating.

Six out of 10 voters agree with the statement that

``families, communities and small business are being

endangered and experiencing the devastating effects of

rhetoric about defunding the police and police department

budget cuts at the hands of politicians.''

These views extend across party, ideology, age and region,

making a concept like defunding the police totally out of

tune with most voters who oppose it by a 3-to-1 margin.

There's a second reason for the Democrats' weakness on the

crime issue. The president and other Democrats have tried to

have it both ways--trying to pose as supporters of the police

while only reluctantly, if at all, acknowledging that crime

is a major problem.

On the White House website list of priorities, crime

doesn't even make the list. The White House's lack of

acknowledgment and often dismissive rhetoric about crime,

particularly in cities with progressive mayors and

prosecutors, has led directly to its weak standing on the

issue.

As a result, when voters were asked in the March survey

whether they believed Democrats would focus on law

enforcement efforts to deal with violent offenders, they were

split, with 44 percent believing they would and 43 percent

believing they wouldn't. Independents were even more

skeptical, with 36 percent believing and 46 percent not

believing.

In contrast, voters by a 61 percent to 27 percent margin

believed that Republicans would stand with law enforcement in

their efforts to ensure the safety of our communities and the

protection of America's families and children.

Not surprisingly, Democrats trail on the handling of the

crime and safety issue by 12 points (48 percent favoring

Republicans, 36 percent favoring Democrats) and among

independents by 13 points (42 percent-29 percent, with 29

percent undecided). The Democratic Party's silence about

threats to safety has left Democrats supporting a policy

position that voters find alienating.

Finally, with police officers, Democrats have chosen the

wrong group to vilify. The police have a very favorable brand

image (72 percent favorable, 20 percent unfavorable in the

March WTI survey). Congressional Democrats have a negative

brand at 44 percent favorable, 49 percent unfavorable. By

affiliating themselves with the defund the police movement,

they are seen by voters as opposing a very positive group of

public servants who are well liked and supported by the

electorate.

By trying to straddle the fence on crime and safety, Biden,

Pelosi and Democratic members fearing primaries have been

unwilling to take on their anti-police progressives. If the

trend continues, this issue will haunt Democrats this

November and for a long time to come.

Madam Speaker, Democrats have long respected and supported our law enforcement. As Representatives Guest and Letlow so eloquently stated in their resolution to express support for recognizing National Police Week, they serve with valor, dignity, and integrity.

They are charged with pursuing justice for all individuals and performing the duties of a law enforcement officer with fidelity to the constitutional rights and civil rights of the public that the officers serve.

They swear an oath to uphold the public trust, even though through the performance of their duties of law enforcement officers, the officers may become targets of senseless acts of violence.

They have bravely continued to meet the call of duty to ensure the security of their neighborhoods and communities at the risk of their own personal safety in the time of a viral pandemic.

There were 619 officers killed in the line of duty in 2021. Republicans honor all of them and prioritize protecting and supporting today's officers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I point out that my good friend and colleague from Minnesota, Congressman Stauber, who is former law enforcement, has twice now released the JUSTICE Act, a commonsense police reform bill, that would rebuild trust between law enforcement and communities they serve.

Why is it that that has not come to the floor yet? And why is that not part of the package that we are looking at?

Congressman Stauber was a police officer for 20 years. He knows law enforcement exists to serve America's communities, and he knows what is needed to rebuild the damaged relationship between officers and civilians.

The Just and Unifying Solutions to Invigorate Communities Everywhere, or the JUSTICE Act, would fund better training for police officers, increase the number of body cameras, and provide important grants to police departments to help implement community policing best practices. Sound familiar?

He introduced this bill this Congress and last Congress and, yet, despite its past bipartisan support, Democrats continuously blocked efforts to bring this to the floor.

Why would Democrats block such a commonsense bill for years and now decide it is necessary to pass these bills?

Let's just take a look at what they spent time promoting instead. For example, the Democrats so-called George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is a divisive bill being pushed through by the majority without any Republican input. Disguised as accountability, the bill would make communities less safe, hinder law enforcement's ability to do their job, limit the readiness of law enforcement, and demonizes an entire profession for the actions of a few.

It eliminates qualified immunity protections for Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers which protect officers who have to operate in high-pressure, quick-decision environments.

It lowers the mental standard for Federal civil rights lawsuits. It allows officer convictions, even if the officer has no specific intent to deprive a person of a Federal right.

I have given a couple of examples of good, strong Republican legislation that was not considered as even part of the Democrats' so- called police or law

enforcement support grouping of bills that they have put together today in an emergency meeting yesterday.

If there was truly support for law enforcement, they would have come together in a bipartisan manner, discussed it with law enforcement, discussed it with the minority, and really come together and created legislation that would truly do what we need it to do, and that is support and help our law enforcement.

Madam Speaker, today's debate is nothing more than a political stunt, as I have mentioned. The Democrats have put forward these bills at the last minute so they can go home this weekend and pretend they have done something to help police in this country.

I mentioned it before. If the majority was sincere about supporting law enforcement, they would have involved the minority. They would have had discussion about the bills, good solid bills that the minority has put forward, and they would have had discussions with law enforcement across the country to find real solutions.

Our police do need our help. There is a war on police in this country, thanks to the efforts of those on the far left. They know it; I know it; and the American people know it.

But these bills are just one more insincere attempt. One mostly recreates programs that already exist within the DOJ. The other includes a section that still gives preference to efforts that do not include recruitment and retainment.

Honestly, Madam Speaker, my colleagues should be embarrassed and ashamed of this political stunt, especially when it comes to something that affects everyone's safety and the American people's safety.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I encourage Members to do the same.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bipartisan, bicameral legislation, the Invest to Protect Act, to invest in good policing, to fight crime, and to protect our families and officers.

We must ensure that local police departments across our country have what they need to recruit and retain the finest officers, provide necessary training, and invest in providing mental health resources for our officers.

Across our country, we have seen a rise in crime, and this is at a time when it is harder than ever to hire, recruit, and retain officers. In fact, last year, public reports found a 44 percent increase in retirements and an 18 percent increase in resignations of law enforcement.

It is clear: If you want to make something better, you don't get there by cutting or defunding. You need to make smart, targeted investments. We must fund, not defund, law enforcement.

That is why I introduced the bipartisan Invest to Protect Act to make critical investments in local police departments and protect our communities.

Work on Invest to Protect started more than a year ago through bipartisan police reform talks with Democrats and Republicans in the House, the Senate, and the States, including with members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, who have overwhelmingly endorsed this legislation.

I helped craft the bipartisan Invest to Protect Act with Republican Congressman, former sheriff, and my friend, John Rutherford, and it was developed through conversations with both sides in both Chambers, and with a broad spectrum of stakeholders. I, again, thank the sheriff for his work and leadership.

I am appreciative of the support and input from the National Association of Police Organizations; the Fraternal Order of Police; our New Jersey law enforcement organizations and departments, including the New Jersey State PBA and the New Jersey State Fraternal Order of Police; and my Senate colleagues.

This bill would not be where it is today without the support of Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Joyce Beatty, whose leadership and friendship have been critical. I also thank the Congressional Progressive Caucus for their constructive engagement in this process. I thank Caucus Chairman Jeffries and Speaker Pelosi for their work, as well.

The Invest to Protect Act will invest in small and midsized police departments with fewer than 125 sworn officers, which make up more than 96 percent of local departments.

First, it will invest in officer safety, de-escalation, and domestic violence response training, and it will offset overtime pay for officers who are training.

Second, it will provide grants for departments to recruit new officers. It will also provide retention bonuses to help them keep their best officers on the job.

Finally, it will help departments provide mental health resources for their officers and include strong accountability measures.

These are critical steps we must take.

Going forward, I will continue to fight for additional equipment and training our officers need to protect our communities.

The bottom line: You can't cut or defund your way to safer communities and better police departments. It is about investing to protect. We must always get the backs of those who risk their lives every day to protect us.

Again, I thank Sheriff Rutherford for his leadership, law enforcement unions for working so hard on this legislation, and all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for putting country first and getting this legislation to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letter of support of H.R. 6448, Invest to Protect Act, from the Fraternal Order of Police.

National Fraternal Order of Police,

Washington, DC, September 22, 2022.

Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Stephen J. Scalise,

Minority Whip, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker and Representatives McCarthy, Hoyer and

Scalise: I am writing on behalf of the members of the

Fraternal Order of Police to urge the Members of the U.S.

House of Representatives to support the passage of H.R. 5768,

the ``Violent Incident Clearance and Technological

Investigative Methods (VICTIM) Act,'' and H.R. 6448, the

``Invest to Protect Act,'' which could be considered on the

floor of the House as early as today.

Homicide cases can be very difficult to clear--especially

those committed via firearm--and non-fatal shootings even

more so. Closing these types of crimes requires diligence,

manpower, and a sustained investigative effort. Given the

limited resources of law enforcement agencies, it's important

to provide the significant, dedicated resources that clearing

these crimes requires, especially given their oftentimes

heinous nature, and the need to get justice for the victims

and their families.

The ``VICTIM Act'' would establish a grant program to help

State, Tribal, and local law enforcement agencies improve

their clearance rates for homicides, non-fatal shootings and

other violent crimes. Agencies can use these grant funds to

train, hire, or retain additional detectives, investigators,

or other police personnel to investigate, solve, and respond

to these crimes. The grants can also be used to improve

training for agency personnel to address the needs of victims

and family members impacted by these crimes. By providing

those important resources to law enforcement agencies across

the country, we can improve the chances that murders, sexual

assaults, kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings get cleared.

This means ensuring punishment for the perpetrators, securing

justice for the victims and their families, and providing

peace of mind for the communities our members work so hard to

protect.

The FOP also urges Members of the House to support H.R.

6448, the ``Invest to Protect Act.'' Over the last few years,

law enforcement officers have faced many challenges and

threats to their well-being that have created a dangerous

environment for those sworn to protect the public. These

challenges have ranged from violence against officers, an

increase in violent rhetoric against them, lagging

technology, recruitment and retention issues, and mental

health concerns. Smaller municipalities are experiencing

increased strain on the men and women in blue. We believe

that the ``Invest to Protect Act'' can help our nation's

smaller agencies and departments combat these issues that

plague law enforcement officers in smaller municipalities.

This legislation would establish a grant program that would

be used for training of officers from police departments and

municipalities that employ less than 125 law enforcement

officers. The funding appropriated would be $60 million over

a five-year period. These trainings would include de-

escalation, domestic violence response, and response calls to

vulnerable populations like those involving persons with

disabilities, mental health issues, or substance abuse

disorders.

This legislation is also designed to help these smaller

agencies recruit new officers and to help address the

retention issue of current officers. The funding could also

be used by officers from eligible departments who are

pursuing further education in mental health, public health,

or social work. These officers could receive up to $10,000 in

aid towards their tuition. Lastly, the funding could also be

used for mental health services, treatments, and therapies

for active police officers.

On behalf of the more than 364,000 members of the Fraternal

Order of Police, I urge the Members of the House to pass

these two bills to support our nation's small departments and

the communities they serve. If I can provide any additional

information about this bill, please do not hesitate to

contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco in our Washington,

D.C. office.

Sincerely,

Patrick Yoes,

National President.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8542, the Mental Health Justice Act of 2022.

``In lieu of law enforcement officers in emergencies.'' I am going to say it again, because that is the exact language used repeatedly in the bill. ``In lieu of law enforcement officers in emergencies.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill is dangerous. This legislation gives Federal grants to States, Tribes, and localities to hire mental health providers to respond to certain emergencies involving an individual with an intellectual disability or developmental disability; an individual experiencing a mental health crisis; or an individual under the influence.

There is nothing wrong with mental health professionals assisting law enforcement in appropriate circumstances. Communities around the country are adopting these models with law enforcement, mental health providers, and prosecutors.

I would be open to supporting legislation limited to training mental health providers to assist law enforcement in appropriate situations, but that is not what this bill does.

A sentence in the bill begins by stating that ``mental health providers may coordinate with law enforcement.'' Sounds acceptable, but it continues to read, ``which may include operating independently'' from law enforcement.

Let's be clear. The purpose of this legislation is to provide financial incentives to deploy mental health providers to inherently dangerous situations in lieu of law enforcement and operating independently of law enforcement. That is a policy that will endanger the mental health professional, the suspect, the person experiencing the mental health crisis, and the person who called 911.

A crime scene or a home experiencing a domestic violence dispute is not the setting to provide mental health care.

In the first half of 2022, the leading circumstance of law enforcement officers killed with firearms was in response to domestic violence calls.

Nobody can confidently tell us they know in advance which domestic violence call should get a mental health response instead of a law enforcement response.

Mental health professionals are not trained for the inevitable physical confrontations that occur in these situations. The priority in an emergency situation is to secure the scene and all individuals involved, which is a law enforcement function. Once the scene is secure, I will be the first person calling for mental health services, whether it is addiction-related, trauma, or mental illness.

There is a time and a place for mental health care, but it is not rolling up to a scene without the training and tools to defend yourself and at-risk civilians. A first responder typically does not have the time and information to know when it is appropriate to provide mental health services.

Who are we expecting to make the distinction on mental health? The 911 dispatcher? An elected official inserted into the emergency dispatch process?

Every additional second layer of bureaucracy will cost lives. The risks are even greater in rural parts of the country, like my home State of North Dakota, where backup is often measured in hours, not minutes.

Ask a mental health provider if they want to be deployed without law enforcement at 1 a.m. on the side of Highway 85 between Dickinson and Watford City.

As if the public safety concerns aren't enough, the bill provides additional financial incentives for the actions that may not be in the best interest of the individual, the community, or comply with established laws of the jurisdiction.

The bill provides additional awards for referrals to community-based, voluntary support services without consideration of the specific needs and circumstances.

Community-based care could be the appropriate setting, but there are circumstances where inpatient care or incarceration are simply more appropriate.

The bill also provides incentives for decarceration rates of certain groups of individuals. Again, decarceration may make sense at times. I have advocated for it in lots of circumstances, but it is

case specific. I have seen it before. Police arrest on a domestic violence charge, release, and respond to a murder 2 hours later.

These decisions should be made at the local level based on specific circumstances with State and local input.

This bill attempts to treat the subject of the 911 call with fairness and dignity. That is something we should all strive toward. The flip side is that this bill does not account for the person who made the 911 call.

These policies will not work in the real world. It will only make dangerous situations more dangerous. The unintended consequences of this bill are extensive, and emergency situations will become more dangerous than they already are.

This is why we need committee process to work through these challenging issues. Criminal justice reform is hard. There are lots and lots of unintended consequences. I have legitimately worked on it my entire adult life. But my Democratic colleagues skipped that process because their focus is on frontline elections in the House, not frontline communities battling rising crime rates.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from the National District Attorneys Association in opposition to this legislation.

National District

Attorneys Association,

Washington, DC, September 21, 2022.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. The only time you know a traffic stop is routine is when it is over. The only time you know it is only a mental health service call is after the scene is secure.

Far too often, and more complicated, are addiction-related issues and mental health-related issues, but none of those preclude the fact that a weapon is there or domestic violence has occurred.

When you continue to coordinate this stuff for cash-strapped departments across the country with decarceration, you will have real consequences.

For well over 25 years, victims' rights groups have fought all across this country to get domestic violence offenders held for the weekend on misdemeanor charges, and there are reasons for that. You need them to sober up; you need everybody to cool off; and victims need the opportunity to get out of the house.

These bills do nothing to do any of those things. These bills will make communities more dangerous from one end of the country to the other.

This bill sounds really good. Cooperation, coordination, all of those words sound fantastic. I will be the first one championing mental health and addiction services to anybody in lieu of custody, in lieu of prison, in lieu of jail time, but I want to do it after the scene is secure and we know there is no weapon onsite and nobody is in danger, when we know the victim is not in danger, the community is not in danger, and the person who is experiencing addiction, mental health, whatever crisis it is, is not in danger.

This bill doesn't do that. This bill does the opposite of that. We should reject it and get back to work on the hard work of passing reasonable, real, strong criminal justice reform.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman just said that the Democrats have always been for--I think the direct quote was: ``equitable funding for law enforcement.'' That is interesting because, just 2 years ago, here is what the chairman said in June 2020:

There should be substantial cuts to police budgets.

I don't know how you can say you have always been for something when 2 years ago you said that you weren't, but that just seems what Democrats are up to today.

Let's call this package of bills before us today exactly what it is: It is an election year ploy from Democrats to look like they care about funding law enforcement.

In the wake of radical leftwing efforts to defund the police, it is no surprise that violent crime is on the rise in America. Every major urban area has seen a huge uptick in violent crime. It should also be no surprise that Democrats are now trying to run and hide from their radical ideas and dangerous rhetoric.

For more than 2 years, we have seen violent crime surge all across the country, particularly in Democrat-run cities while many of those same Democrats not only advocated for defunding police departments, but they did it. They cut them.

Now, the Democrats want to use Federal tax dollars to paper over the problems they created in their local Democrat-run cities.

These bills do nothing to solve the underlying problem. They simply create more grant programs within the bureaucracy of the Federal Government.

Under current law, there are already grants available to law enforcement to hire personnel. In fact, last year, the Justice Department awarded more than $139 million in grant dollars through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. That money provided funds to 183 law enforcement agencies and allowed them to hire more than 1,000 additional officers.

We don't need more Federal grants so Democrat-run cities can then divert taxpayer money to fund their woke agenda. What we need are prosecutors who are willing to prosecute crimes and jurisdictions with laws that actually keep violent criminals in prison.

Nothing in these bills prevents jurisdictions that choose to defund their police from receiving these grant funds. In fact, when Judiciary Republicans offered an amendment to preclude jurisdictions that defunded their police from receiving grant funds, the Democrats rejected it, and they rejected it unanimously.

Faced with an election just over a month away, House Democrats now want to pretend they actually support law enforcement. The timing of this bill should tell you all you need to know about where Democrat priorities are.

Democrats who are in full control of this body have had 2 years to show their support for law enforcement. Only now, when faced with an impending election, are Democrats beginning to feign support for our men and women in blue.

Democrats could have shown their support for law enforcement. Instead, Democrats passed bills to infringe on Americans' Second Amendment rights, legalize marijuana, and further empower the Biden Justice Department to spy on concerned parents.

These bills are just another admission by Democrats that the defund the police movement is wrong and irresponsible. Perhaps, if the Democrats weren't in a cleanup mode after their irresponsible embrace of defund the police rhetoric, the Judiciary Committee could have had an opportunity to consider and improve most of these bills before they came to the floor. But we didn't. Instead, Democrats are rushing to consider these bills to give themselves some pretense that they support funding the police.

No one is fooled. Americans know where Democrats really stand. Americans aren't buying the Democrats' revisionist history. They have seen years of Democrats embracing and supporting the radical defund the police movement. Americans know that the Democrats are the party of soaring crime and defunding the police.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear. The Democrats want to go from COPS to community organizers, and they want the American taxpayer to pay for it. That is what they want to do in Democrat-run cities.

Mr. Speaker, read the bill. It talks about stipends to be used for graduate education or social work. That is what the bill is for. It is not about putting cops on the street. It is about transferring wealth from the people who funded their police and communities around the country, who funded their police, and giving American tax dollars to cities who didn't fund their police so they can use it for community organizers.

That is what this bill is about. That is why we are against it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what my distinguished colleague and chairman of the committee was referring to there, but I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, I would just add this: One of the phrases we heard from the Democrats over the last couple of years is ``reimagined policing.''

Well, now we know what they mean. Now we get it. They want to take money from communities who funded their police and give it to communities who didn't, so they can get past this whole defund the police that has been their mantra for the last couple years.

In fact, as I said before, I am surprised by some of the statements I have heard from the chairman of the committee, because as I said, in June of 2020--and it is a direct quote--``There should be substantial cuts to the police budget. . . . `'--by Mr. Nadler.

Now he has got a bill that supposedly, they are saying, funds the police, but we know it doesn't. It takes money from communities I get the privilege of representing in west central Ohio who never, never defunded their police. They made sure the men and women in blue got the resources they needed to protect their communities.

And now the Democrats are saying: We want to take taxpayer dollars from those communities and set up these grant programs so we can give it to social workers. This is straight from the bill, so we can give ``a stipend to be used for graduate education in the area of mental health, public health, or social work. . . . `'

That is what they want the money to be used for, not for the people who are stopping the crime that is happening in every major urban area around the country.

That is why we are opposed to this legislation. I hope it goes down.

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

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