Expressing Support for Local Law Enforcement Officers and Condemning Efforts to Defund or Dismantle Local Law Enforcement Agencies
Floor Speech
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is nothing more than empty rhetoric designed to score political points. It does nothing to help our law enforcement officers do their jobs. It does nothing to solve crimes or promote justice. It does nothing to take deadly weapons like those used to target law enforcement off our streets, and it does nothing to make our communities safer.
It is also wildly misleading and full of incendiary rhetoric that does not match reality. Very conspicuously, it even fails to recognize the service or contributions of Federal, State, or Tribal law enforcement officers.
It is worth remembering that when the Republicans passed their rules package at the beginning of the Congress, it included several supposedly ``ready to go on day one'' bills.
An earlier version of this resolution was included in that list, but it never made it to the floor. Now we know why. The problem is that the original version praised all law enforcement, not just local law enforcement, as this resolution does.
Why was that a problem?
Because as we have learned in recent months, House Republicans now support defunding the police at the Federal level. Don't take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Chairman Jordan told FOX News that he wants to ``look at the appropriations process and limit funds going to some of these agencies.''
He later made clear he was referring to the FBI and the Department of Justice.
Mr. Biggs has called directly for defunding those agencies, and Mr. Gaetz has introduced a bill that would eliminate the ATF altogether.
Limiting the resolution to local law enforcement also helps Republicans paper over an embarrassing split in their caucus over whether even to recognize the contributions of our brave Capitol Police officers who protected us on January 6.
I remind Members that 41 Republicans voted against awarding Congressional Gold Medals to the Capitol Police officers and the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department in recognition of their service on January 6.
That must be why the resolution states that violent leftist extremists have attacked law enforcement, but it makes no mention of the violent mob of far-right extremists and white supremacists who stormed the Capitol that day injuring 140 police officers with five officers losing their lives in the days after.
H. Con. Res. 40 is a hopelessly misleading resolution that omits crucial context and ignores crime trends in the country, including the disturbing rise in gun violence and the higher per capita murder rate in States won by Donald Trump.
While Republicans want to talk tough with nonbinding resolutions about funding the police--local police that is--it was Democrats who passed bill after bill last Congress to actually fund and support the police.
So where were Republicans when Democrats went about the serious work of legislating?
When given the opportunity to put action behind their cheap rhetoric, time and again, Republicans voted ``no.'' For example, last Congress Democrats advanced the Invest to Protect Act which would have authorized $300 million in grants to law enforcement agencies with fewer than 125 officers to smaller localities.
This legislation passed with bipartisan support, but 55 Republican Members voted against it.
Democrats also advanced the VICTIM Act led by Congresswoman and former police chief Val Demings which would have provided grants totaling up to $100 million per year to law enforcement agencies to help them solve violent crimes and close outstanding cases.
Mr. Speaker, 178 Republicans voted against it.
Democrats advanced the assault weapons ban which was supported by the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives because they know that these weapons of war are used to murder law enforcement officers and to terrorize their communities.
Nearly every Republican voted ``no.''
House Democrats worked with Republican Senator John Cornyn--who is not someone known to be soft on crime--to pass the Law Enforcement De- Escalation Training Act, a bill that increases safety for law enforcement and community members alike.
This bipartisan bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent, but when it came to the House, 159 Republicans voted against it.
This is not and never has been a serious approach to legislating.
Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 40 is a wasted opportunity to advance meaningful legislation that would support the men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker referred to some remarks I made, and they are accurate.
What I said was that substantial resources should be taken from the police and given to mental health services, and that was done. About a billion dollars was taken from the police department in New York City by the city council and the mayor and given to mental health services.
That made sense. Why? Because when someone is acting out on the subway, when someone is threatening on the subway, what you usually need is a mental health professional there, not a policeman who doesn't know how to handle it.
Since a lot of resources were devoted to mental health, the situation in the subways generally and on the streets has gotten much better. It has worked.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I can say that when the gentleman says we should honor local police, he is also saying we should not honor Federal police.
This resolution does not honor Federal police. It does not honor the ATF, the FBI, or thousands of Federal law enforcement officers, the law enforcement officers who protected us on January 6 from a far-right attack.
It talks about leftist violence, but it refuses to talk about rightwing violence. It is not a balanced or fair resolution.
It seeks to give a distorted picture of what is going on in this country, and that is why we cannot support it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, before recognizing the next speaker, let me also point out that this resolution also claims that progressive politicians actively encourage resentment toward local law enforcement.
When we tried to remove such misleading claims during the markup, Republicans said no. We tried to unite behind what should have been the point of this resolution, support of all law enforcement without language that shamed or demonized Members and misled Americans, but Republicans refused. That is another reason we have to oppose this amendment.
Jayapal).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the gentleman from Colorado wants to honor Federal law enforcement personnel who defended us on January 6 and otherwise, which leads me to the question of why the Republicans refused to let us have an amendment to that effect in committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Kamlager-Dove).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman from Colorado say he is interested in a resolution praising the Capitol Police and so forth, which makes it all the more puzzling why the Republicans refused to let us consider an amendment to that effect to this resolution in committee.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for being so eloquent on where we are today.
Let me read the headline of this legislation, H. Con. Res. 40, expressing support for local law enforcement officers. Broadly supported all across America.
Every day we are supporting our local law enforcement, but as well we are supporting our Federal law enforcement that are right in my district today holding a meeting, men and women who put their lives on the line.
I don't know why we couldn't on this last day of National Police Week, as we began the week, as I indicated, and repeat over and over again, that I was there for this ceremony that I have gone to every year, which has honored those who have fallen in battle.
They had everyone represented. Everyone was in brotherhood and sisterhood. Everyone was embracing families and those in law enforcement. No one asked for your Democratic ticket or your Republican ticket. All they were grateful for is you had come to honor and recognize the importance of the work that they do.
This could have been a place where we showed to the Nation the reasoning of our hearts and our minds.
I offered an amendment to include Federal law enforcement. How dare we ignore them on this day?
We cannot ignore January 6. We cannot ignore the Capitol Police, along with those who came to help, who will always have the scars of that horrific day.
Why? Because we have never seen in our modern-day eyes an attack on the United States Capitol that was not in war.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to say, yes, I support local law enforcement. Never have my lips ever said the words that would take dollars away from those personnel, their salaries, and all that they need to do.
I don't know why in a resolution that speaks about honor that we have to mix not even apples and oranges but apples and stench. There is no reason to attack anyone in this. Put a resolution about how much you hate the folks on the other side of the aisle; we will debate that. I don't hate them.
What we tried to do in committee is to say let us make this a resolution, Federal, State and local folk, and let us not talk about folk who are dismantling anything because I don't know Democrats who stood outside of a DA's office and tried to dismantle them. They have an independent decision, right, to make. They are elected by the people. If they are not at the level that the people want, they are gone.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to amend this from the floor. Let this be an amendment that we can all vote for. This is my last word: I support local and Federal law enforcement.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I support Federal, State and local law enforcement. I support those that are in my district right now.
I would offer to say, aren't we examples for young people?
Don't we want our children to raise up and support law enforcement and see all of us standing together and not dividing?
Don't we want good policing, good police relationships?
None of that is a divide. It is a unity, and it represents the Constitution of the United States of America.
I tell you that the officers that I engage with believe in it. I ask my colleagues to decide to do something better than this legislation.
Again, if the gentleman wanted to support our Federal police, the ATF, the FBI, the Capitol Police, he had the opportunity in committee, and the Republicans refused to let us consider that.
We have all of these statements from people like the chairman of the committee saying defund the FBI, defend the ATF. This is being a little, shall we say--I don't want to use the word ``hypocritical,'' but I can't think of a different word.
We should oppose this resolution because it is blatantly one-sided, it blames leftist agitators improperly, and it does not deal with Federal law enforcement agencies.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, police week ought to be a unifying event, a time when we can all come together in a bipartisan fashion to recognize and support the men and women of law enforcement who risk their lives to keep us and our communities safe.
Instead of offering serious legislation, Republicans have brought forward misleading and incendiary political talking points that will neither protect law enforcement nor enhance public safety.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. I oppose the D'Esposito amendment as its central focus is advocacy for the law enforcement officers' bill of rights, a controversial measure pushed by police unions and adopted by many States in response to demands for greater accountability and transparency following many high-profile incidents of police abuse and misconduct. While seemingly benign, the impact of a bill of rights for law enforcement officers can be profound.
For decades, this type of legislation has been one of the greatest obstacles to police accountability, hindering investigations, and shielding misconduct from public scrutiny, a likely explanation for why less than half of all States have adopted one. In Maryland, the first State to adopt and the first State to repeal an officers' bill of rights, the statute was often cited as the reason for Baltimore's long history of police misconduct.
In many instances, the statutes offer protections and procedural privileges to law enforcement officers facing accusations of wrongdoing or disciplinary action far beyond those afforded to other government employees or to the average civilian accused of criminal behavior.
For instance, some States provide officers involved in an incident a cooling-off period of 24 hours or so before they must cooperate with internal investigators. During this cooling-off period, an officer and his or her attorney may have access to evidence collected during the investigation before the officer is interviewed.
Through these statutes, officers are shielded from the very interview tactics that they use on civilians, such as lengthy interrogations or the use of aggressive or threatening questioning, or promises of rewards to induce cooperation, both of which this amendment suggests should be avoided to ensure the fair administration of justice when investigating officer misconduct and only officer misconduct.
These laws can allow officers accused of wrongdoing to remain on duty for prolonged periods of time while investigations are conducted, as well as limit the types of disciplinary actions that can be taken against officers accused of wrongdoing. They also often limit the authority of civilian review boards and make it difficult for the public to access information about officers' misconduct in disciplinary proceedings and, ultimately, for civilians to hold officers accountable for their actions.
These concerns have led to calls across the country to repeal or reform existing law enforcement officers' bills of rights to ensure more transparency, accountability, and fairness in the disciplinary process. When mayors and police chiefs have attempted to reform their troubled police departments, it has been their States' officers' bills of rights that have stood in the way.
While this amendment might be well intentioned, it encourages States to adopt a bill of rights for local law enforcement personnel without offering any guidance so that we might not further perpetuate the already problematic nature of these measures which I have just outlined.
Lastly, I note that just as the text of H. Con. Res. 40 celebrates local law enforcement while ignoring thousands of Federal, State, and Tribal law enforcement officers, so, too, does this amendment. It is for these reasons that I must oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, if I mispronounced Mr. D'Esposito's name, I apologize. I thought I said it correctly.
Secondly, I outlined in my remarks the problems with existing State bills of rights for police officers. Some States have repealed them. They have gotten in the way of investigations. They have gotten in the way of investigations of police brutality and misconduct and generally have aggravated all the reasons, all the problems that I spoke about in my opposition to the main bill.
For that reason, I reiterate my opposition to this amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to vote against it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source