Resolution Regarding Violence Against Law Enforcement Officers

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, on August 29, 2002, two deputy sheriffs in Prince George's County, Elizabeth Magruder and James Arnaud, were ambushed in the home of the shooter's family. They had been called to the house to execute a warrant, a health warrant, because the parents were concerned about the erratic behavior of their son.

Elizabeth Magruder was shot in the back of the head, and James Arnaud was shot and killed, as well. He left behind a wife, two children, and two grandchildren. She left behind a husband and a 3-year-old son.

I had just been elected State's attorney in Prince George's County, but I hadn't even been sworn in yet. One of my first duties was to attend the funerals for both of them. My first memorial service during Police Week was in their honor.

Therefore, I take this very seriously. The National Police Week commemoration, I think, is something that is very grave, and we should treat it with great respect.

Unfortunately, ambushes like the one Magruder and Arnaud faced that day haven't ended. We just saw recently the ambush in Charlotte. Four officers were killed, and eight were shot. We have had others like that all over the country.

My thought when we had Police Week approaching was that we would approach this in a bipartisan manner. I actually reached out and worked with Congressman Hunt from Texas, and we put together a bill that was aimed at expanding the number of police officers because we know that there are shortages across the country. We know that we need to increase the pipeline so that more officers will come and take on these dangerous tasks and stand in harm's way, or stand in the gap, as the pastor said this morning.

It was a bipartisan effort. It came out of the committee by voice vote. It was passed on the floor in a similar capacity. The Senate companion bill was passed, as well. We are looking forward to that becoming the law of the land in short order.

Unfortunately, much of the legislation that has come after that has been anything but bipartisan. The legislation we are speaking to today, I am afraid, falls into that category.

When I took a look at the resolution, H. Res. 1213, I had hoped to see praise go out to our officers across the country for the work that they do and for the officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. Indeed, there are paragraphs that speak to that. Unfortunately, there are passages that don't.

My colleague from Virginia and his comments a few moments ago made some of the same kinds of comments, with respect to, for example, the defund the police argument. My Republican colleagues have concluded that ``defund the police,'' a phrase that was used several years ago, is somehow fueling the rise of crime and, in this particular instance, the death and attacks against police officers.

As I just went into a moment ago, Magruder and Arnaud were killed in 2002, over 20 years ago. We know we have been seeing deaths of officers in the line of duty for decades now. It is nothing new. To kind of casually blame it on a slogan that I am not aware of anybody in the body here today who espoused that--certainly, I didn't--to pretend that that is the reason these shootings or these killings are occurring, is, I think, unfortunate and an abuse of what this week is supposed to mean.

Now, in addition, I would say this: I just mentioned that I don't know that anybody supports the defund the police slogan from a few years ago, but we do have colleagues in the House right now, a House Republican, who has a bill, H.R. 374, to defund ATF, and we have House Republican colleagues who called for the defunding of the FBI.

The irony of that, as those of us who have worked in law enforcement know--I was a prosecutor for 12 years, 4 on the Federal level, 8 as the locally elected State's attorney--the local and Federal prosecutors work together all the time. It is critical. Sometimes they work together in task forces because they can bring the local, the State, and the Federal forces to bear and provide maximum support in protecting our communities.

Unfortunately, this piece of legislation and much of the legislation that has been discussed this week that has been offered by my Republican colleagues intentionally ignores Federal law enforcement. In fact, we had one that was marked up in my committee, the Judiciary Committee, where I offered an amendment to include Federal law enforcement. It was expressly rejected on a party-line vote by my Republican colleagues.

I have to say that the FBI, ATF, and Border Patrol put their lives on the line, too. We should respect them, as well. One of the reasons I can't support this legislation is that it really is disrespectful to those Federal officers.

The other is that, back to the defund police issue, there is a recognition in the legislation where it talks about the number of officers who died in the line of duty in 2021, 2022, and 2023. I can talk about the specific numbers in a moment when we move forward in the debate, but one provision actually notes that 378 law enforcement officers were shot in the line of duty in 2023. The one common thread between the vast majority of officers who have been killed in the line of duty, like Arnaud and Magruder, like the people who were ambushed in Charlotte, like most of the people with the names on the wall just a few blocks away from here, is they were shot.

Sadly, my Republican colleagues are unable, unwilling, un-something to take a step to address that gun violence. The resolution here speaks in terms of defunding the police as the cause of their deaths, but all of us know that the greatest threat that these officers face is not being stabbed to death. It is not being beaten to death with a slogan like defund the police. It is being shot to death.

Briefly, these are numbers from the cops working with the National Fraternal Order of Police. A total of 331 law enforcement officers were shot in the line of duty during calendar year 2022 in 267 separate shooting incidents, including 42 incidents where multiple officers were shot.

I appreciate the fact that we are going to offer resolutions to praise officers, but if we are really serious about protecting them, it is hard to ignore a data point like that. Yet, our officers have to go out there knowing that they face these threats all the time. Traffic stops are particularly dangerous, but sometimes, like for Arnaud and Magruder, officers can be ambushed in a home. Sometimes, like in Charlotte, they can be ambushed in the open air.

Taking that seriously, I think, is an important piece, yet the resolution doesn't even mention it.

I will say this, and then I will take a pause here for a moment, but there is legislation pending right now in the House of Representatives. I offered one, an assault weapons ban. I figured it might be a bridge too far for me to ask my Republican colleagues to cosponsor that, so I came up with a bill. It is called the Raise the Age Act, and it would elevate the age from 18 to 21 to purchase assault weapons.

I thought that would be a reasonable bill to offer because there was already a provision in the law for handguns. You had to be 21 to purchase a handgun. I believe that was put in place during the Reagan era.

For my bill, raising it to 21, since you have to be 21 to buy alcohol, I thought it might make sense to be 21 to buy an assault weapon, as well.

I think we have 171-plus cosponsors for that bill, but none of them are Republican, not one, even though Republicans had agreed to legislation similar to that in previous years.

I will speak to you in a moment about the resources issue, as well. In the 117th Congress, Democrats supported legislation to provide equipment to police officers. We will get into the particular numbers of that in a moment, but none of that is moving forward here in the House now, and none of it is certainly moving forward in Police Week.

I want to point out one little factoid from the COPS document that I mentioned before. It is under the heading Bullet Resistant Vests:

At least 34 officers were protected from gunshots that struck a protective ballistic vest.

Yet, we are struggling to find a way to provide additional support and equipment for officers to help them stay safe on the street. That is what we ought to be doing during Police Week, and to the extent we are going to talk in terms of resolutions in support of officers, let's strip out the political nonsense. The defund the police stuff really has no place in helping to protect police officers and make them safe.

As I mentioned a moment ago, it is a slap in the face the way these legislative provisions have been proposed to always exclude Federal law enforcement. I know you guys have issues on the other side about some of them, but I think this isn't the time or the place to express it in that way. Federal law enforcement deserves the same kind of respect, the same kind of appreciation, the same kind of protection that local and State law enforcement officers do.

I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. We have had other resolutions that have come through before, and we have urged them to oppose them, as well. I am going to urge my colleagues on the other side after this vote is over--and you are in the majority, so you can move this kind of stuff whether it really makes a difference or not. Hopefully, after we get past this moment, we can actually sit down and get back to the type of legislation that I worked on with Congressman Hunt that can really make a difference to help make police officers safer, to help get more police officers on the street, and to praise all of them for the great work that they do.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, I have got to say that I am deeply shocked and offended by the statements that were just made, especially regarding me, but the larger context, too.

The gentleman from Minnesota read a quote that he attributed to me, and it is a statement I made, but it was about the killing of Tyre Nichols.

Tyre Nichols was the gentleman in Tennessee who was beaten to death over a period of 10 to 15 minutes by I believe it was six police officers. In fact, I remember watching the video, and there were multiple videos because they had different angles. One of the officers who had been beating him got tired and stepped away so he could catch his breath and then came back to continue beating him.

I had never seen anything like it. I was shocked.

I had cases when I was the State's attorney where police officers used excessive force, and I prosecuted those cases. In some cases, we convicted those individuals.

I guess my colleague from Minnesota thought that the beating death of Mr. Nichols was good policing, but keep something in mind. The chief of the police of that department fired those officers because he recognized that that had crossed the line that good police officers recognize and follow every day, under every circumstance, and in every situation.

I thought that is what we were going to honor this Police Week. To sort of hold up the Tyre Nichols scenario as an example of what police officers are supposed to be doing during Police Week is insane. I can't believe it, but that is what the gentleman did.

Let me say this. It is important for us to make sure that we walk and chew gum at the same time. We want to honor good policing, for sure, because every community needs it. We need police officers who go out and respond to calls for robberies, shootings, or whatever. We need detectives who respond in homicide and rape prosecutions and investigations at the local, State, and Federal levels. We definitely need it, but even they have recognized over time that the bad apples, and the ones in Tyre Nichols' case were clearly not just bad apples but about as bad as you can get, have to be separated out because it is important for the police to police themselves. I know it is hard, but we have to make sure that they do it.

The gentleman mentioned body cameras a moment ago. Guess why we have body cameras. That was one of the innovations that was made to address excessive force. Guess what. One of the things that has led to is better policing.

When I first ran for State's attorney in Prince George's County, one of the issues I ran on was videotaping interrogations, and I wrote an op-ed. It was titled ``Safeguards for the Innocent.'' I was joined by the former head of the homicide unit here in Washington, D.C. We wrote it together.

The reason we wrote it was because we knew that if these investigations were videotaped, it would address the flurry of false confessions that had been made in Prince George's County. We knew they were false because they were proven to be innocent by DNA evidence. We knew they were false confessions, so we made this change to try to address that.

Guess what happened. Initially, the police officers opposed it, but the good detectives realized quickly that the videotapes showed the great work that they were doing and that they were going about it the right way. The juries appreciated that, too, because then we could just bring it in, set up the video, play the tape, and the jurors could see for themselves and make their decision. That is good policing.

I think it is important for us to make sure that we hold police officers, just like we do prosecutors or any other law enforcement profession, to a basic level of following the law even as they try to protect us from misconduct.

I guess this is kind of par for the course now for my Republican colleagues. On the January 6 piece, for example, we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are calling the perpetrators of January 6, the rioters of January 6, hostages and patriots. The majority is calling the people who participated in it patriots, the ones who had been prosecuted, convicted, and jailed. Even though I think over 900 of them pled guilty, others were convicted after jury trials.

They have had their day in court. They have had their due process. They were rightly convicted and held accountable. They have been sentenced to jail, but we still have my colleagues on the other side of the aisle calling them patriots and hostages, even though five officers died as a result of January 6 and many others were injured, too.

Mr. Speaker, this is Police Week, and I am hoping that we can get back to trying to do things in a bipartisan way here, but based on what I heard from my colleague from Minnesota, that is not likely to happen.

It is important to make sure that we do this: We have to make sure that we recognize the challenges we face in law enforcement. I support law enforcement, as I mentioned earlier. We have legislation to try to increase the number of police officers who are going to be out there on the street because we need more police officers on the street. The George Floyd Act, which was referenced, I think, a minute ago, is aimed at making sure that, in addition to having more on the street, they do the job in the right way.

When I first got elected, we didn't have iPhones very often. We would prosecute these cases and present the evidence to the jury in excessive force cases, and many times, the jury would reject it.

One of the transformations that happened with the iPhone, though, was that people, standing there on the street while excessive force was taking place, videotaped it, and then they were able to bring that to the police. Additionally, cases that probably wouldn't have been charged previously were not only charged but led to convictions.

The George Floyd scenario, the person who that legislation is named after, is a paradigm example. Derek Chauvin was there with his knee on George Floyd's neck for 9\1/2\ minutes. The police report that Derek Chauvin and his other colleagues on the street filled out made no mention of all of that, but the videos made it clear that Derek Chauvin had basically just strangled him to death with his knee. He was held accountable, and the other officers around him, who basically did nothing while it was happening, were held accountable, too.

Maybe my colleague from Minnesota had that in mind when he made some of the statements he just said a few minutes ago. I sure hope not because officers who do that belong in jail. They shouldn't have a badge, a gun, and a license to kill. That has to be given to the people we can trust to enforce the law in the right way.

For the vast majority of police officers, that is how they do it, and that is why we appreciate and respect them. When they cross the line, I hope we don't have people like the gentleman from Minnesota act like that is okay because it is not. We have to hold them accountable.

A minute ago, I mentioned serious legislation. It is a little surprising to me that we are having such a debate like this over legislation that is just a resolution basically. It speaks only of defund the police and the like.

The Democrats in the last Congress, for example, passed meaningful reforms to support police even though, in many instances, they were opposed by Republicans. Last Police Week, we passed H.R. 6943, the Public Safety Officer Support Act, which extended death benefits to law enforcement officers with PTSD. It happened over the objection of 17 Republicans, including 4 on the Judiciary Committee.

Last Police Week, H.R. 2992, the Traumatic Brain Injury and Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder Law Enforcement Training Act, passed, as well. Twenty-one Republicans objected to that also.

We keep passing legislation, or we did when the Democrats were in control, to actually provide additional resources and benefits to police officers who get injured in the line of duty. I think that is important for us to continue to do, but our colleagues aren't doing it.

Republicans are bringing this political legislation, and it got really political a minute ago when the gentleman from Minnesota was up there, frankly, kind of ranting about things he attributed to me, which I think was wrong and incorrect, but, more importantly, things the gentleman keeps trying to attribute to Democrats and the change in policy.

Mr. Speaker, here are a couple of other quick points about some of the things my colleague said, like the decline in police officers. I have to be clear. One of the things we have in the bill I cosponsored with Mr. Hunt was a report that is going to study this because I think it is going to help address a lot of the misinformation that is coming out on the other side about why we are having some shortages.

They are saying it is based on the defund the police slogan, but the roots of these shortages started many years ago. In some instances, in some jurisdictions, we just have a cycle of people who are coming up for their retirements at their 20-year and 30-year marks. In any event, let's try to make sure we get the evidence and the data so we can correct those challenges.

It is not just fixing a slogan on the street. It is a dangerous job. It doesn't pay as much as it should. Many of the officers or potential officers find that they can have jobs that pay as much but don't have to work as hard. For example, in a Homeland Security Committee hearing, I remember the Border Patrol agents testifying that they are having trouble retaining officers at the border, not because of a defund the police slogan but because they can leave the job and make more money doing other things and stay in the same community, and it is less taxing than being an officer.

If we are honest about it, we can come up with better solutions to try to retain them, like maybe paying them more money, but if we keep spreading rhetoric about this is defund the police, we won't fix the problem and get more officers.

If money is the issue, and of course it is a factor, then just standing here and haranguing about defunding the police doesn't fix it. We have to find ways to raise the salaries and help attract and retain more of them to go out on the street.

I am going to stop with this, for the moment. I first went into law enforcement in 1990 as a prosecutor, and I took it seriously then.

The gentleman on the other side is accusing Democrats of not being serious about police. We have former police officers here on this side of the aisle who are Democrats, and I know them across the country. Not only that but every time I have run for office, I have been endorsed by the FOP in my jurisdiction. It is a little unfortunate to sort of use those sorts of attacks to justify the resolution that is proposed here.

Let's get serious. Let's get back to doing things that actually will address the problems and retain more police officers, recruit more police officers, and address the concerns that we have with respect to keeping safe on the street.

Yes, gun violence is a big factor in the dangers that they face on the streets. I think it is kind of hard to be serious about protecting them if we are not even going to discuss that.

My colleague from Virginia mentioned that he thinks we want to make sure that they are 21 because if you wait until they are 21, it undermines their Second Amendment rights. I appreciate that, but I don't agree with that take.

Let me say this: Ghost guns, I haven't come across anybody who thinks those make sense. They are intentionally designed to avoid prosecution. They don't have any numbers on them in order to avoid being tracked in the event of use for a criminal enterprise. The use of ghost guns in crimes on the street is exploding.

We need to get our Republican colleagues to help us support legislation like that. We are having trouble finding it, but today would be the day.

By the way, talking about killings on the street, it is handguns primarily, as I just mentioned a few minutes ago, that are leading to officers' deaths on the streets. If we are really serious about protecting police officers, can't we do something to try to address that? Can't we do something to try to limit the number of guns on the street?

Also, I know that the argument is going to be Democrats are soft on crime and all of that, but remember, a lot of the people who commit these crimes don't have prior offenses. The guy who killed the two deputies in my jurisdiction, Arnaud and Magruder, didn't have any prior record. He had mental health issues.

We can't just assume that all of these issues revolve around people who have long criminal records because they don't, and many times police officers are killed on the street by people with no prior records.

Let's try to address all of these issues in a serious way, in a bipartisan way, because that is the way to actually help keep our police officers safe on the street.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. IVEY. Mr. Speaker, no Member of Congress questions the difficulty, danger, or stress associated with serving in law enforcement. We are grateful for each and every Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement officer, agent, or employee working daily, putting their lives on the line to keep us safe in every corner and territory of this Nation.

This week we should come together to honor their dedication to their jobs and communities, lift up the names of those officers and agents who gave their lives in service, and wrap our arms around their loved ones left behind.

Sadly, Republicans have chosen partisanship over bipartisanship at this time. I, therefore, must oppose H. Res. 1213, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 337, nays 61, not voting 32, as follows: [Roll No. 218] YEAS--337 Adams Aderholt Aguilar Alford Allen Allred Amo Amodei Armstrong Arrington Auchincloss Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Banks Barr Bean (FL) Beatty Bentz Bergman Beyer Bice Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (NC) Blunt Rochester Boebert Bost Boyle (PA) Brecheen Brown Brownley Bucshon Budzinski Burchett Burgess Burlison Calvert Cammack Caraveo Carbajal Carey Carl Carter (GA) Carter (LA) Carter (TX) Cartwright Case Castor (FL) Chavez-DeRemer Cherfilus-McCormick Chu Ciscomani Cline Clyde Cohen Cole Collins Comer Connolly Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crane Crawford Crenshaw Crow Cuellar Curtis D'Esposito Davids (KS) Davidson Davis (NC) De La Cruz Dean (PA) DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Diaz-Balart Dingell Donalds Duarte Duncan Dunn (FL) Edwards Ellzey Emmer Escobar Espaillat Estes Ezell Fallon Feenstra Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fletcher Flood Foxx Frankel, Lois Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Gaetz Gallego Garbarino Garcia, Mike Golden (ME) Gonzales, Tony Gonzalez, Vicente Good (VA) Gooden (TX) Gosar Gottheimer Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Green (TN) Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Harder (CA) Harris Harshbarger Hayes Hern Higgins (LA) Hill Himes Hinson Horsford Houchin Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Hudson Huizenga Hunt Issa Jackson (NC) Jackson (TX) Jacobs James Jeffries Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy Khanna Kiggans (VA) Kildee Kiley Kilmer Kim (CA) Krishnamoorthi LaLota LaMalfa Lamborn Landsman Langworthy Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latta LaTurner Lawler Lee (FL) Lee (NV) Leger Fernandez Lesko Letlow Levin Lieu Lofgren Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Luna Luttrell Lynch Mace Malliotakis Maloy Mann Manning Massie Mast Matsui McBath McCaul McClintock McCollum McCormick Meeks Menendez Meng Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Mills Molinaro Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Moran Morelle Moskowitz Moulton Mrvan Mullin Murphy Neguse Nehls Newhouse Nickel Norman Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Owens Pallone Palmer Panetta Pappas Pascrell Pelosi Peltola Pence Perez Perry Peters Pettersen Pfluger Phillips Posey Quigley Raskin Reschenthaler Rodgers (WA) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Ross Rouzer Roy Ruiz Ruppersberger Rutherford Ryan Salazar Salinas Sanchez Scalise Schiff Schneider Scholten Schrier Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Sherman Sherrill Simpson Slotkin Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Smucker Sorensen Soto Spanberger Spartz Stanton Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Stevens Strickland Strong Suozzi Swalwell Sykes Tenney Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Titus Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Turner Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Orden Vargas Vasquez Veasey Wagner Walberg Waltz Wasserman Schultz Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Wild Williams (NY) Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke NAYS--61 Balint Barragan Blumenauer Bonamici Bowman Bush Cardenas Carson Casar Casten Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Crockett DeGette Doggett Eshoo Foster Foushee Frost Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Garcia, Robert Goldman (NY) Gomez Green, Al (TX) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jayapal Johnson (GA) Kamlager-Dove Lee (CA) Lee (PA) McClellan McGarvey McGovern Moore (WI) Nadler Napolitano Neal Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pingree Pocan Porter Pressley Ramirez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Scott (VA) Scott, David Stansbury Takano Tlaib Underwood Velazquez Waters Watson Coleman Williams (GA) NOT VOTING--32 Bera Bishop (GA) Buchanan Castro (TX) Cleaver Cloud Clyburn Davis (IL) DesJarlais Evans Ferguson Gimenez Granger Greene (GA) Grijalva Jackson Lee Kean (NJ) Kim (NJ) Kuster Kustoff LaHood Magaziner McClain McHenry Mfume Miller-Meeks Mooney Norcross Sewell Trone Wexton Wilson (FL)

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

Mses. ESCOBAR, BROWNLEY, Messrs. RUPPERSBERGER, AMO, Mrs. DINGELL, and Mr. PANETTA changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

So the resolution was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Stated for:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source