Reauthorizing Support and Treatment for Officers in Crisis Act of 2025

Reserving the right to object.

I am reserving the right to object.

I want to begin by acknowledging the tragic loss of New York City Police Officer Didarul Islam last night, just about 50 miles from where I live. He made the ultimate sacrifice, bravely placing himself in harm's way to protect strangers, people he didn't know, because that is what American police officers do. This selfless commitment is a daily reminder. It is a reminder of the reality for police officers in America who risk their lives to safeguard communities. My deepest condolences go out to his family and his young children during this time of unimaginable grief.

I rise today to propose an amendment to the bills before us, one that guarantees every officer in every State like Officer Islam has the full support they deserve in their service to our communities from this body.

Sadly, this is not what the Justice Department is doing. Rather than supporting law enforcement agencies and officers equally across the Nation, they are weaponizing public safety grants to punish State and local jurisdictions that resist the Trump policy agenda, including my home State of New Jersey.

The Department of Justice is right now withholding funds from law enforcement agencies across the country--including New Jersey--that we have passed through this body in a bipartisan way unless they enforce the administration's unjust immigration agenda and comply with the President's unjust and unlawful Executive orders and memoranda. It is disgraceful, it is unfair, it is unjust, and it is dangerously reckless towards the officers whose well-being they are jeopardizing--officers like the ones I know personally who serve and protect New Jersey.

Come on now. Federal funds should not be used for partisan political games. They shouldn't be weaponized to benefit this State that supported the President and not this State that didn't support the President. This is the shift towards authoritarianism. It is undermining the separation of powers we have here in America.

This body has duly-approved grants. It is our job. It is spelled out in the Constitution that each of us has sworn an oath to protect. And this President is upending that process, violating the

will of this body, Democrats and Republicans alike, in pursuit of his petty political agenda. And who is getting hurt? Well, in this case, New Jersey police officers are being hurt; New York police officers are getting hurt. In the wake of a murder of a police officer in New York yesterday, this is outrageous.

Public safety grants like these that I am a cosponsor of are not meant to reward law enforcement in favored jurisdictions or States while punishing others. It shouldn't matter whether a person puts on his uniform in Texas or New Jersey. Does it matter that Officer Islam, who was killed last night in New York City--does it matter that he is a New York cop and not a North Dakota cop? Sadly, it appears that Donald Trump thinks so.

For us as a body, to move forward right now is being complicit in what Donald Trump is doing. I say no. I say we stand. I say we fight. I say that we reject this and, in a bipartisan way, that we demand an end to this kind of constitutionally unjust carving up of the resources we approve.

Think about this: In April, Donald Trump's administration cut nearly 400 public safety grants administered by its Office of Justice Programs without any notice or explanation. Think about that for a second. Programs that I supported, programs that I cosponsored, programs that protect police officers and communities, he canceled without a justification.

I have written letters to the Justice Department. They have not given a justification. I have asked in open hearings: Why did you cut this funding for approved grants to States like New Jersey? No justification. I sent a letter to the DOJ signed by 30 of my colleagues demanding information about what happened and that they reinstate all grants that had been rescinded, and no action and no response. Yet, today, we want to move forward with needed grant programs to protect police officers, but that money won't go to New York; that money won't go to New Jersey. You have got to be kidding me.

When will we stand and fight this President?

This offers little consolation. Today, nobody is speaking to the organizations in New Jersey, to the police officers in New Jersey that partner with law enforcement but now lack the resources to endure a burdensome appeal or to operate without critical grants or funding now for months.

When are we going to stand up as a body and defend our work, defend our jurisdiction, defend this coequal branch of government?

I ask my colleagues to pass these bills with my amendment to provide resources to law enforcement agencies with this important provision that safeguards these grants from politicization and ensures that all law enforcement agencies have a fair chance to secure these important grants.

Our officers have the hardest job in America. Every day, they put their lives on the line. Why would we do something today that is playing into the President's politics and is going to hurt the officers in States like mine?

I believe in these bills. I am a cosponsor on some. That is why I am standing here to fight to ensure police departments in New Jersey aren't excluded from accessing these vital funds. Our officers have just as much of a right as officers in other States. So do officers in California, in New York, in Illinois, in Washington, and in other States that have been the target of this Department of Justice.

I am an American. I pledge allegiance to that flag--liberty and justice for all. Pass my amendment and make sure that all officers in America who put their lives on the line have access to these grants.

I ask consent that the bill be modified, that my amendments to S. 180, S. 419, S. 539, S. 1316, and S. 1563, which are at the desk, also be agreed to, and the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed en bloc so that all police officers in America get the intended resources that the Judiciary Committee passed unanimously for American police.

Reserving the right to object, I am confused by my colleague because she knows I don't object to her two bills. She is going to be offering her two bills in a second. I don't know what the confusion is there.

I object to the bills that are putting resources out that States from California to New York are not eligible for because of the actions of this President.

The second thing my colleague confuses me is saying I had my chance. Actually, I didn't. The regularly scheduled Judiciary Committee hearing wrapped up, and then a hastily one was put back together. I had no notice of that, no ability to plan for it, and had a conflict.

This, to me, is the problem with Democrats in America right now, is we are willing to be complicit to Donald

Trump; to let this pass through when we have all the leverage right now there is to say that if you are as passionate about police as we are, then pass bills out of this body that will help the police officers in Washington, that will help the police officers in Illinois, that will help the police officers in New Jersey, that will help the police officers in Newark.

Don't be complicit to the President of the United States who, we both know, doesn't understand that language: ``Oh please, oh please, don't hurt blue States.''

We are standing at a moment where our President is eviscerating the Constitution of the United States of America, and we are willing to go along with that today.

No, no. Not on my watch. I stand against this. It is a violation of our Constitution for the President of the United States to ignore the will of Congress and decide which States are eligible to grants and which are not.

Well, we know something in New York and New Jersey. I was a Newark elected official when 9/11 happened. I saw my first responders charging into those buildings. I know what police officers do every day.

My amendment was just called a poison pill. That is ridiculous. My amendment just says police officers in New Jersey are just as important as the police officers in North or South Dakota. It says the police officers in New York are just as important as the police officers in Texas. It says the police officers in California are just as important as the police officers in Alabama.

Why would we go along with a President who is violating our Constitution time and time again? When in the history of this body-- Democrats and Republicans used to stand up for their turf. These could easily pass. Put a simple amendment that says: You know what? You can play games however you want, President Trump, but when it comes to resources for police officers, no games.

Today, I stand and fight for the Constitution. I stand and fight against this President. And, heck, yeah, I am going to stand and fight for the police officers from the great State of New Jersey. I object.

Mr. President, I was just called out by name, and I want to respond.

This is what frustrates me. I have passed numerous pieces of legislation for our police officers. I partnered with Chuck Grassley-- the incredible Senator from Iowa--on a bill very similar to the one I support about police officers who fall in the line of duty. In this case, it was COVID. Police officers who got COVID and died had difficulty proving it was a line-of-duty death. We passed that legislation to make sure those families got the benefits.

I have worked in bipartisan ways and within my own party to make sure we get resources to our police officers. I don't need lectures about the urgency of this. One of my childhood best friends--a police officer in a small town in New Jersey--after a hard day's work, before he even went home to see his family, died by suicide. I don't need somebody implying in any way that this is not vital to me and my State that we have resources for our police officers. That is why I support this package. That is why I am a cosponsor of some of the bills in this package.

But what I am tired of is when the President of the United States of America violates the constitution and trashes our norms and traditions. And what does the Democratic Party do--comply? allow him? beg for scraps? No. I demand justice. Somebody is implying that this, to me, is not about resources for my State. I will fight for Jersey every day, every night and when it comes to the police officers of my State as to anybody who implies that something is going on other than my allegiance and fealty to the safety, strength, and protection of my police officers because they protect me and everybody in this body.

This is a call, folks. The Democratic Party needs a wake-up call. I see law firms bending a knee to this President, not caring about the larger principles--those free speech rights that you can take on any client. Why are you bending the knee?

I see universities that should be bastions of free speech bending at the knee to this President. I see businesses taking late-night talk show hosts off the air because they dare to insult a President. I see people who want mergers suddenly think they have to pay tribute to this President.

And what are the very people here who are elected to defend the Constitution of the United States saying? Oh, well. Today, let's look the other way and pass some resources that won't go to Connecticut; that won't go to Illinois; that won't go to New York but that will go to the States he likes. That is complicity with an authoritarian leader who is trashing our Constitution.

It is time for Democrats to have a backbone. It is time for us to fight. It is time for us to draw lines. And when it comes to the safety of my State being denied these grants, that is why I am standing here. Don't question my integrity. Don't question my motives. I am standing for Jersey; I am standing for my police officers; I am standing for the Constitution; and I am standing for what is right.

Dear God, if you want to come at me that way, you are going to have to take it up with me because there is too much on the line in America with people's due process rights and free speech rights and as secret police are running around this country picking people up off the streets who have a legal right to be here. There is too much going on in this country.

When are we going to stand together for the principles that I just heard that were agreed with? When are we going to stand together? If we don't stand as Democrats, we deserve to lose, but if we stand united, if we stand strong, if we stand with other people, if we tell America, with a chorus of conviction, that what this President is doing is wrong--if we stand up and speak that way--dear God, we will win like all of those people who are our ancestors who joined hands together and said: We shall overcome.

No, not on my watch. I am protecting Jersey today. I am protecting our Constitution today. I am standing today.

Mr. President, I rise today seeking unanimous consent to pass a package of bipartisan bills that will support current and former law enforcement officers who have sacrificed so much-- sometimes everything--to protect our families.

Yesterday morning, three people died in a shooting in my home State in Reno, NV, and just hours later, four people died, including a law enforcement officer, in a shooting in New York City.

The only reason more people didn't die is because law enforcement responded quickly. Law enforcement officers run toward danger for the rest of us. These are the people we are supporting with the package of bills today.

This package includes three pieces of legislation that I am proud to cosponsor and one I introduced myself.

I am a cosponsor of S. 419, the Reauthorizing Support and Treatment of Officers in Crisis Act of 2025 introduced by Senator Hawley. This bipartisan bill would help fund family support, suicide prevention, and other mental health services to law enforcement officers.

I am also a cosponsor of S. 1316, the Strong Communities Act of 2025, introduced by Senator Peters. This is bipartisan legislation that would make law enforcement recruits eligible for funding to make their education and training programs more affordable in return for their commitment to service to our communities.

And, finally, I am cosponsoring S. 539, the bipartisan PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization Act of 2025, introduced by Senator Cornyn. This bill authorizes funding for the Department of Justice to assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in investigating and prosecuting child exploitation.

These bills, along with four others, including my colleague Senator Klobuchar--these bills honor our law enforcement officers and have support from both Republicans and Democrats.

The legislation I want to focus on today is S. 911, the bipartisan Chief Herbert D. Proffitt Act of 2025, which I was proud to introduce with Senator Mitch McConnell.

The men and women who serve as law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to keep our community safe. Whether they are actively serving or have retired in good standing, we owe them a debt of gratitude. That is why the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program exists.

It provides death and education benefits to the surviving family members of fallen law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other first responders.

It also provides disability benefits to officers who have suffered irreparable injuries in the line of duty. It is a critical program that supports the families of those who sacrificed everything to protect our communities.

Unfortunately, the existing PSOB Program does not cover the rare instance in which a retired law enforcement officer dies as a result of their service.

In 2012, Chief Herbert D. Proffitt, a retired law enforcement officer in Kentucky, was going about his day. When he went outside his house to check his

mail, he was tragically shot and killed by a man he had arrested a decade earlier.

Even though his murder was a direct retaliation for his service in uniform, Chief Proffitt's family was denied the benefits they deserved simply because he had already retired. To me, that is unacceptable, and I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree.

That is why Senator McConnell and I worked together to write the Chief Herbert D. Proffitt Act to ensure that families of retired law enforcement officers who were killed as a result of their service are not denied benefits, so no more families have to go through what Chief Proffitt's family has gone through. This is just commonsense, bipartisan legislation that passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee--unanimously.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and the rest of the bipartisan bills in this package to protect the men and women who protect us every day, and their families.

I would like at this time to provide an opportunity for my colleague from Iowa--to yield some time to him, the Judiciary chairman, right now, to provide some remarks.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Iowa and the Judiciary Committee and all of the good work he has done on these important pieces of legislation, as they really work towards ensuring that all of our communities across the country stay safe and that we are supporting our law enforcement.

So as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 77, S. 180; Calendar No. 79, S. 419; Calendar No. 80, S. 539; Calendar No. 81, S. 911; Calendar No. 82, S. 1316; Calendar No. 83, S. 1563; Calendar No. 84, S. 1595; further, that the committee- reported substitute amendment to S. 1563 be agreed to and the committee-reported amendment to S. 1316 be agreed to; that the committee-reported substitute amendment to S. 539 be withdrawn and the Cornyn substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; finally, that the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Reserving the right to object, I agree. Withholding funding for law enforcement anywhere in the country--across the country--is just not acceptable and it should not be done and it should not be based on party affiliation, playing favoritism--I absolutely agree.

But I also agree, two wrongs don't make a right. And where we are today, these bills passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee weeks ago, and my colleague from New Jersey, I have respect for him. He is on the committee. He voted to pass these bills. He had an opportunity at that time to present this amendment. This is the first time we are ever hearing about it.

We have been trying to pass this package of bills that passed out of committee unanimously in the last 8 weeks. And now that we came to the floor to try to push and get this done, we are hearing for the first time about this amendment.

Let me just say, this amendment really is not even applicable to the Proffitt bill that is part of this. It has nothing to do with grant funding. This bill has everything to do with trying to make sure that grant funding goes to all the States. I am not here to talk about grant funding. There is no funding associated with it, yet he wants to put it on my piece of legislation.

This is why it is ridiculous. This is an attempt to kill all of these bills. I don't know why. I don't know why, because at the end of the day, all of these bills are about bipartisan support.

If my colleague absolutely has concerns about getting funding to his law enforcement, I would be willing to work with him. I would be willing to work--and I know my colleagues would try to figure out how we ensure that this administration doesn't play favorites and fight for that funding and holding them accountable to get that funding to all of our law enforcement communities across this country.

I agree; President Trump's impoundment of funding is a serious concern. But tacking on poison pill language to these bills won't guarantee that any additional funding makes it to New Jersey, Nevada, or any other State. Instead, what it will do, it will keep critical bills from passing in the first place. Let me just say that again. These are critical bills.

One bill, the Protecting First Responders for Secondary Exposure Act, requires purchasing devices that prevent secondary exposure to fentanyl and other lethal substances. Reauthorizing Support and Treatment for Officers in Crisis Act 2025 provides family support and mental health services to law enforcement personnel. PROTECT Our Children Reauthorization 2025 assists Federal, State, and local law enforcement Agencies in investigating and prosecuting child exploitation.

And we are sitting here today saying: That is not going to pass--even though it came out of committee unanimously; even though there was a time to address the concerns that my colleague has. And now he wants to kill all of these bills, some of them that his amendments are not even applicable to.

You have to question what is going on here. Is this the right venue to fight for what he is seeking?

I absolutely respect him and understand his concern and would be willing to fight with him to get that funding--essential funding--to his State that this administration has, apparently, blocked. But this is not the way to go about it, to kill all of these bills with this poison pill amendment. For that reason, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, let me try to refocus this on the bills that are before us today.

I am not sure if the answer here is to stop bipartisan legislation that gives tools to law enforcement across the community to keep our communities safe--that stopping those is the answer moving forward here. I don't know of anyone across this community who has a concern when they make that 9-1-1 call who doesn't want law enforcement to respond. I don't care whether you are a Republican, a Democrat. I don't care if you are nonpartisan. I don't care where you live. You want law enforcement to respond if there is something happening in your community.

That is what these bills are focused on, is how do we ensure that our law enforcement has the tools that it needs to ensure that it can keep our communities safe. That is all it is, and there are several of them, bipartisan, and they passed in a unanimous way for that very reason--to keep our communities safe.

Now, we can talk about the funding for those in appropriations. That is a separate subject, and I am willing to work with my colleague and fight the administration from stopping that funding, but if we don't pass these pieces of legislation, we are not even giving the tools to law enforcement to keep our communities safe. That is what this is about, and that is why there was unanimous consent for it.

I do want to also thank one other person I didn't get a chance to, who is Senator Durbin. He has worked tirelessly on the Judiciary Committee on these pieces of legislation, has worked with law enforcement, has worked with all of us in the understanding that it is about safe communities at the end of the day and about ensuring we keep and give law enforcement the tools it needs to keep our communities safe.

I also appreciate my colleague who is willing to work with me on two pieces of the bills that are before us, albeit we worked this out just before we walked on the floor today, but I appreciate his willingness to allow me to really kind of pull out two pieces of legislation and talk to him about it and then his willingness--what I am hearing--to support it.

To the esteemed Presiding Officer, I am going to reserve the right to object.

I am really grateful that this is one of the areas where we have a lot of bipartisan support because this body I would say unanimously believes that we have to do more to help local law enforcement.

I see it in my State. We have real challenges--challenges with recruitment, challenges with officers who are in incredibly stressful situations for their mental health, and even empowering officers to be able to do their job, which is a job that everyone wants our officers to do.

I say this all the time: If you polled my city, which is a majority minority city, a majority African-American city, and asked them ``Hey, do you want more police, less police, or the same amount of police?'' undeniably, they would want more law enforcement.

When I talk to the law enforcement officers in not just my city but up and down the State, they want more resources. That is why I have multiple bills to actually fund our police departments around our country and specifically in New Jersey to empower them on everything from closing out murder investigations all the way to mental health.

In fact, the legislation that is being brought forward--it is right, it is bipartisan legislation. I am the cosponsor of some of the bills we have right now on the floor. We should be united in this body, all 100 of us, to stand up for public safety and to fund our police, get them the resources and the equipment they need to do their job.

Unfortunately, that is not what is happening. President Trump, through an arbitrary Executive order, has told this body: Your intentions will not be followed.

The legislation that is being proposed today--the President has already said that those DOJ grants will not go to certain States-- Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey--that they are not eligible for these grant programs. That is not a bipartisan way of going about it. That is singling out certain States over other States. That is actually defunding the police departments in certain States for other States when you say that these States that have gotten many of these grants in years past can no longer get them. None of us in this body should support that. All of us in this body should join together and say: When Congress passes a grant program, the President of the United States cannot arbitrarily decide which States receive those grants and which States don't.

I feel a driving sense of urgency that we must support our police officers. They are facing greater and newer challenges in this country. I feel a deep urgency to support mental health issues in particular because I lost one of my dear childhood friends, who died by suicide in uniform.

I want to make a simple adjustment to this legislation--very simple. What it would do is basically say that when this body has approved these grant programs, the President can't undermine the Founders' intention that we hold the purse strings, that the President can't undermine that and these grants have to go out as Congress intended them.

That is all I am asking from my colleague across the aisle, and it is all I am asking from this body, is that we, together, say: We need to get resources for police officers in all of our country. We shouldn't be picking out some departments and not others.

This is just simply making sure that this is a bipartisan effort to fund local police officers.

So I ask my colleagues to pass these bills as I amend them so that we can refocus on the urgent work of reopening the government and then providing all law enforcement agencies with the resources they need, ensuring every law enforcement agency has a fair opportunity to secure funding to support their work, to support the men and women, to support their sacred and noble duties. We should work in a bipartisan way.

So I ask that the consent be modified such that my amendments to S. 180, S. 419, S. 539, S. 1316, and S. 1563, which are at the desk, also be agreed to, with all the other provisions that my colleague is asking for remaining intact, so that we can fund all of police and stop our President's attempt to defund police departments in blue States.

Yeah, I just--again, I have so much respect for my colleague that I want to respond to some of the things he said, because, again, I just want to affirm that he is right on the urgency to help our police officers. He is right that States should abide by Federal law that passes from this body. But what we have now is a President who, in his first term, didn't ever try something like this, which is undermining the will of Congress. This is really unprecedented. It has never happened--Republican President, Democratic President--including Donald Trump's first term, where he suddenly said: I am going to turn off the spigot of support to local law enforcement agencies because I don't agree with your policies.

I think that is a threat to the independence of our branch of government. I think that is in so many ways violative of our shared values on both sides of the aisle. But let me go further than that. What the President is doing is saying: Not only am I going to stop funding from going to the State of New Jersey, I am going to go to red counties in New Jersey, red counties in California.

I actually went out and talked to people. Republican legislators in States, Republican police officers, a Republican union leader told me this as well: This is ridiculous. This is insane that we would hold grants back from the entire State. He said: I don't agree with Democrats' policies, but we are out here putting our lives on the line, and Republicans in Congress want to stop resources coming to our police departments.

One of the union leaders said to me: My guys are out there sacrificing their lives, and we can't get help that both sides of the aisle agree on?

So, yes, my colleague and I disagree on domestic immigration policies. One thing he and I don't agree on--because I was the mayor of a city that basically said: In order to keep my city safe, we are going to cooperate with the police department. It was an overbroad generalization that was made on the Senate floor that we are not supporting ICE and immigration activities. I know this up and down the State of New Jersey. Not only do we support them, but we detailed officers with Federal immigration enforcement. I did it when I was mayor.

You want to talk about cooperation. Anybody who knows local government from the FBI to the ATF to ICE, all over New Jersey, we are cooperating with Federal authorities. What we have simply said is we are responsible for local law enforcement. We are not going to do things that create such fear in our communities that immigrant communities are afraid to come to local police to report crimes. And that somehow--not in Trump's first term--but somehow in this term of office, that is a bridge too far.

Let me tell you right now, the way immigration is being pursued in our neighborhoods, where masked agents are coming out of unmarked cars or going to court appearances and schools and hospitals--my local police officers are telling me how much more dangerous this administration is making communities because people who are the victims of crime now are afraid to go to local police officers and report those crimes.

Again, this is not coming from politicians in New Jersey. This is coming from law enforcement officers that have said that we have created such a climate of fear in our country that just solving crimes is getting harder and harder because people are afraid to come to the police.

So, yes, we have policies that say there are certain things we won't do to maintain a community of trust within our communities.

I understand there is a lot of rhetoric. I could turn on shock news and all of that, but when you talk to the law enforcement officers in many of the most Republican parts of my community, they are outraged about what is happening right now.

Again, we can debate policy on immigration, but, to me, for a Senator to allow a President to undermine the power of the purse relegated by the Constitution to this body is outrageous. It has never been done before, not in Trump's first term, not by Bush, not by Reagan, not by Clinton, not by Obama. We are in new territory here in our country where we see a President encroaching upon our powers. I can't be complicit in that.

Everybody in this body--I would never question any of my colleagues on either side of the aisle. We all want our local police departments to not only be able to do their job, we all want to have more equipment and resources. That is why these bills are bipartisan. How can we allow bipartisan bills passed out of the Senate to then be stopped, in a partisan way, by a President who is then going to choose red States and hurt blue States, even though my State has millions of Republicans who deserve to have their communities safe as well?

I am standing today just to say, let's use common sense and help our police officers together; get the resources desperately needed out to our communities now and not let this fall victim to something that wasn't even an issue in Donald Trump's first term.

So I object. I object. I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 77, S. 180; Calendar No. 79, S. 419; Calendar No. 80, S. 539; Calendar No. 82, S. 1316; Calendar No. 83, S. 1563; further, that the committee-reported substitute amendment to S. 1563 be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment to S. 1316 be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute amendment to S. 539 be withdrawn, and the Cornyn substitute amendment at the desk to S. 539 be agreed to; finally, that the bills, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time and passed en bloc and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

I rise to request unanimous consent here on the bills that were just mentioned, to call up and pass this year's Police Week bills. These are bipartisan bills. These are common sense. Most importantly, particularly in light of recent events--and you can turn on the television right now and see what I am talking about--they would give this Chamber the chance to demonstrate its commitment to the men and women who wear the badge and to the laws they serve to protect.

This is not a time to mince words or blur lines; this is a time to speak clearly with full moral force.

In cities across the country, our law enforcement officers are beset from below and above. From below, on our streets, they face an emboldened criminal element and a resurgence of organized political violence. From above, in the halls of power, they face a political class which seems hell-bent on undermining and attacking them at every turn.

We have watched this unfold for years now. The press has smeared and defamed our police officers, seeking to incite hatred and violence against them. Fringe academic ideas about defunding police and shuttering prisons have moved from the classroom, to the courtroom, to the legislature, and then to codified laws. Riots. Lawsuits. Slashed budgets. Malicious lies blared through the largest megaphones in our country.

Time and time again, the system has sided with the criminal over the cop, the looter over the law. The result of this system could be seen in unprecedented waves of violence that ravaged our cities in the wake of the George Floyd riots in 2020. It can still be seen today on the streets of cities overtaken by antifa. These are not rhetorical or theoretical concerns; we watched it happen in real time.

It is not the product of social conditions or inequity or systematic this or that; it is the inevitable result of a civilization that has lost its moral nerve, a civilization that is too wracked by guilt to punish its criminals, to enforce its laws, or to confront its enemies-- even when those enemies are beating police officers and firebombing Federal buildings right before our eyes.

When a government loses the ability or the will to defend its own cities, its own institutions, its own people, then it ceases to be a government worthy of its name.

The path back to justice is simple. It requires laws like the ones we are going to consider here today.

It requires protecting the people who protect us, like the bill to equip first

responders with protective gear against fentanyl exposure, keeping them safe from the very poisons they are trying to fight.

It requires ensuring that our police officers are healthy in body and in spirit, like the bill to reauthorize critical mental health services for cops and their families. Every single year, more police officers die by suicide than die in the line of duty. This is profoundly a policy failure and one that is on us to fix.

It requires hunting down the predators who seek to prey upon our kids from the darkest recesses of the internet, like the bill to reauthorize and modernize the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. This bill funds and enhances our ability to catch and convict the very worst kinds of criminals--those who target and abuse children.

It requires building strong police departments with officers who know the neighborhoods and the people they protect, like our bill to send local recruits to police academies if they agree to serve in the precincts in their own communities.

It requires wisdom and experience, like the bill to give State and local agencies the ability to rehire retired officers in civilian law enforcement roles.

If you stand on the side of justice and our first responders, these votes should be simple and easy.

With that, I would ask to move forward.

Reserving the right to object, let's be clear about what this provision does from my friend from New Jersey. It is attempting to throw a lifeline to these sanctuary cities that are openly defying the law. In order to receive Federal grant dollars, you can't withhold information from Federal law enforcement. That is what they are doing. That is what it means to be a sanctuary city.

What you are saying is, we are not going to work with ICE or any other Federal Agencies because we want to protect illegal immigrants in our cities.

That is what is happening. That is deeply unpopular with the American people. And that is why the President is taking this action to try to get these cities to come along and be part of the program with the rest of the country to say: We are all going to work together to keep our communities safe.

This provision is a direct attempt to undermine the Trump administration's attempt to do that and their renewed enforcement of our immigration laws.

I know some people got used to the last 4 years, where 20 million people came here illegally and Federal law enforcement was handcuffed by the Biden administration to actually enforce our immigration laws-- so much so that the rhetoric that had been exhibited at that time now has carried over, and you see fire bombings, and you see attacks on ICE officials, attempts to dox them, to destroy their families and their reputations and their finances, because they have been led to believe by many with the loudest microphones that somehow everyone is entitled to be here for as long as they want, that Federal laws don't matter, that borders are arbitrary lines on a map and we are all global citizens.

The white papers from the sixties and the seventies found their way into the highest offices in government in the Biden administration. These Ivy League grads who wrote these white papers or read these white papers or were indoctrinated by these white papers were suddenly in charge. Well, there is a new sheriff in town who actually believes in law and order.

So I would hope that city leaders who defy our Federal laws shouldn't be entitled to Federal tax dollars. Federal grant dollars are not entitlements. They are not unconditional welfare for far-left activists. If you want Federal funds, you have to comply with Federal law.

Sanctuary cities are in open defiance of Federal law. They actively prohibit their officials from cooperating with

Federal immigration officers. They release violent offenders, suppress gang databases, and do everything in their power to prevent the men and women in law enforcement from enforcing our laws. That is what they are doing in sanctuary cities right now.

Every one of the Police Week bills that I have offered for unanimous consent--and my friend from New Jersey is indeed a cosponsor--are very, very bipartisan. I can't actually believe we are in a place where we are going to be holding up that kind of bipartisan legislation when you see the violence against law enforcement officers in our country every single day. This is a lifeline to them, the help they need not just to do their jobs but to be able to seek the services so they can be healthy, physically and mentally.

So let's be clear about what is happening. My friend has, you know, a few moments here to reconsider this. These are common sense. If there is anything from last November we can take away, it is that the American people voted for a return to common sense.

With that, I object.

Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Nevada for her work in trying to bring these bills to a vote on the floor. I want to thank Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I want to thank Senator Durbin, who is here, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee; someone who has, by the way, been a leading voice on immigration for years in this Chamber.

One of the things I don't understand here is that we have committees for a reason, and we have hearings for a reason. You can't do one thing on Police Week and not show up and not object and let these bills go through and then say another thing a few weeks later in a big speech on the floor. I like to show up at the markups, and I like to make my case.

And I will note that Senator Booker objected to my police reauthorization bill, the COPS funding--the Clinton COPS funding, long before Donald Trump came into office. So this is not just about this. This is a long dispute over this type of funding, funding that I think is really important right now.

Our country's law enforcement professionals do some of the hardest and most important work out there. Every day across America, we ask them to put everything on the line to keep us safe. We ask them to run towards danger and to guide others to safety. And every day across America, they put on their uniforms, their bulletproof vests, their badges, and they get to work. We need to have their backs, and that is what this package of bills does--by the way, a bill supported out of the committee from some of the most liberal Senators and some of the most conservative Senators in this body. We came together. There were bills we would have liked to include that we did not.

If the objection is based on some of this horse show that is going on out of the White House, I agree with that piece of Senator Booker's points. I have been equally vociferous taking on this administration. But all of these bills came out of the committee unanimously, and I think they deserve that support on the floor.

These bills help fund grants for mental health services for law enforcement. By the way, if this issue--which I agree with Senator Booker on about all these States should be treated the same--well, then, I suppose then he will be voting against all of this funding for New Jersey unless this is changed. So we should be watching for that for every single vote, instead of just these bills. These bills that are in front of us were supported unanimously out of committee--grants that help law enforcement combat child sexual exploitation; grants that help address recruitment and retention crisis that is plaguing local law enforcement; Senator Cortez Masto's bill, as she explained, to help support families of fallen law enforcement officers who were targeted and attacked because of their service as law enforcement.

My bill, which has now been objected to--so I am not going to mention it separately or ask for it to be called up separately. My bill, the Retired Law Enforcement Officers Continuing Service Act, done with Senator Grassley, would make sure that law enforcement agencies can continue to utilize the skills that talented law enforcement retirees have built up over their career of public service. There are many retired law enforcement officers who want an active retirement and are eager and ready to serve their community.

This might sound like small ball, but when we are looking how we are going to build up these police agencies when we don't have enough police, when they are out there at these scenes getting shot at, we have to be creative in terms of the ideas.

I believe strongly, we are going to see another President in the future. We are going to see, out of these next elections, a check on some of this. But for now, I want to get these programs started.

This bill would allow law enforcement agencies across the country to keep using their expertise to review video footage to solve carjacking cases or help cyber and financial crime investigations. This bill will also help train the next generation of law enforcement officers. These and the other police bills passed during Police Week while those police officers are sitting there in the hearing room when no one objected, they are bipartisan, commonsense legislation. They passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously.

And I can't help it if someone couldn't change their schedule to be there. I think that these hearings should mean something and that people should be saying the same thing they say in Police Week when those people are sitting out there in their uniforms who have lost loved ones. As they say on this Senate floor, if we expect law enforcement to respond to some of the most difficult crises at a moment's notice, it is on us to set them up for success.

I was there at the National Mall where it rained the entire night, and not a family wasn't there when they thought it was going to be a nicer day. And that was this year on the National Mall to honor those fallen heroes, the Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Candlelight Vigil. Every single officer whose name was read that night was a beloved family member and a friend to so many, including three from my State.

There was Officer Jamal Mitchell who was shot and killed in the line of duty just last June; and Officers Paul Elmstrand and Matthew Ruge who, along with Firefighter Paramedic Adam Finseth were killed responding to a domestic violence call in Burnsville, MN. They were called to duty. They answered the call. They actually got seven kids out of this house and saved their lives. One was gunned down. A paramedic came in to try to save him, and he was gunned down. I will never forget hearing from Adam Medlicott, who was there with the three fallen first responders when they answered the call.

He said of his fallen comrades:

We were there for seven children. Nothing could be more

honorable.

He is absolutely right. You can't teach that kind of heroism. Our brave law enforcement professionals deserve to know that the resources they rely on will be there when they need them.

I hope we can work some of this out. I completely agree with Senator Booker about what this administration is doing, but you can't just pick out a few bills that came out of committee and say, ``I am going to stop those,'' and then allow for other bills that fund other parts of your budget in your State.