Providing for Consideration of H.R. Break the Cycle of Violence Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. Violent Incident Clearance and Technological Investigative Methods Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Invest to Protect Act of and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Mental Health Justice Act of 2022
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FISCHBACH. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FISCHBACH. 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, 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FISCHBACH. 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).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FISCHBACH. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FISCHBACH. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FISCHBACH. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source