[Pages H2071-H2077]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 IMPROVING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY AND WELLNESS THROUGH DATA ACT

  Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 405, I call up the 
bill (H.R. 2240) to require the Attorney General to develop reports 
relating to violent attacks against law enforcement officers, and for 
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2240

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Law Enforcement 
     Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) There has been a rise in anti-police rhetoric and a 
     corresponding rise in violence against law enforcement 
     officers.
       (2) In 2022, a total of 60 police officers were feloniously 
     killed in the line of duty.
       (3) Nearly 30 percent of police officer killings in 2022 
     were caused by unprovoked attacks or ambushes on officers.
       (4) Law enforcement officers bravely put themselves at risk 
     for the betterment of society.
       (5) A data collection that represents the full 
     circumstances surrounding violent attacks and

[[Page H2072]]

     ambush attacks on law enforcement officers is vital for the 
     provision of needed Federal resources to Federal, State, and 
     local law enforcement officers.
       (6) Police suffer assaults and other offenses that do not 
     rise to the level of Law Enforcement Officers Killed and 
     Assaulted or National Incident-Based Reporting System 
     reporting due to the frequency of such incidents, lower risk 
     to officers, and minimal administrative resources to report 
     such frequent events.
       (7) The mental health of law enforcement officers has 
     suffered due to overwork, recruitment issues, and the general 
     stress of their work.
       (8) The people of the United States will always remember 
     the victims of these hateful attacks against law enforcement 
     officers and stand in solidarity with individuals affected by 
     these senseless tragedies and incidents of hate that have 
     affected law enforcement communities and their families.
       (9) The United States must demonstrate to its brave law 
     enforcement officers that they are important, valued, and 
     respected.
       (10) Congress has made a commitment to helping communities 
     protect the lives of their police officers, as evidenced by 
     the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program 
     Reauthorization Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-155; 130 Stat. 
     389) and other laws.
       (11) Subsection (c) of the Uniform Federal Crime Reporting 
     Act of 1988 (34 U.S.C. 41303(c)) requires the Attorney 
     General to ``acquire, collect, classify, and preserve 
     national data on Federal criminal offenses as part of the 
     Uniform Crime Reports'' and requires all Federal departments 
     and agencies that investigate criminal activity to ``report 
     details about crime within their respective jurisdiction to 
     the Attorney General in a uniform matter and on a form 
     prescribed by the Attorney General''.

     SEC. 3. ATTACKS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS REPORTING 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 
     Director of the National Institute of Justice, and the 
     Director of the Criminal Justice Information Services 
     Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit 
     to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a 
     report that includes--
       (1) the number of offenders that intentionally target law 
     enforcement officers because of their status as law 
     enforcement officers;
       (2) the number of incidents reported to the Law Enforcement 
     Officers Killed and Assaulted Data Collection that occur 
     through the coordinated actions of 2 or more parties;
       (3) a description of the Federal response to ambushes and 
     violent attacks on Federal law enforcement officers;
       (4) a detailed survey of what State and local responses are 
     to ambushes and violent attacks on State and local law 
     enforcement officers;
       (5) recommendations for improving State, local, and Federal 
     responses to ambushes and violent attacks on law enforcement 
     officers;
       (6) a detailed survey of Federal and State-based training 
     programs that law enforcement officers receive in preparation 
     for violent attacks, including ambush attacks;
       (7) an analysis of the effectiveness of the programs 
     described in paragraph (6) in preparing law enforcement 
     officers for violent attacks, including ambush attacks;
       (8) recommendations on how to improve State, local, and 
     Federal training programs for law enforcement officers 
     relating to ambush attacks;
       (9) an analysis of, with respect to the Patrick Leahy 
     Bulletproof Vest Partnership under part Y of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 
     10530 et seq.)--
       (A) the efficacy of the Partnership in distributing 
     protective gear to law enforcement officers across the United 
     States, including any location-specific limitations to the 
     distribution under such Partnership; and
       (B) the general limitations of the Partnership, including 
     any location-specific limitations to the distributions under 
     the Partnership, considering the fact that law enforcement 
     officers are suffering from ambush attacks;
       (10) an analysis of the ability of the Department of 
     Justice to combine the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and 
     Assaulted Data Collection and a 09C Justifiable Homicide 
     report for officer-involved shooting reports and any 
     roadblocks to producing a clear report with such information;
       (11) an analysis of the ability of the Criminal Justice 
     Information Services of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     to expand data collection to include a suspect offender's 
     level of injury at the time of a reported Law Enforcement 
     Officers Killed and Assaulted Data Collection incident;
       (12) an analysis of the existence and extent of, and 
     reasons for, disparities in the availability and reporting of 
     data between--
       (A) data relating to ambush attacks against law enforcement 
     officers; and
       (B) other types of violent crime data; and
       (13) an analysis of any additional legislative tools or 
     authorities that may be helpful or necessary to assist in 
     deterring ambush attacks against law enforcement officers.
       (b) Development.--In developing the report required under 
     subsection (a), the Attorney General, the Director of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of the National 
     Institute of Justice, and the Director of the Criminal 
     Justice Information Services Division of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation, shall consult relevant stakeholders, 
     including--
       (1) Federal, State, Tribal, and local law enforcement 
     agencies; and
       (2) nongovernmental organizations, international 
     organizations, academies, or other entities.

     SEC. 4. AGGRESSION AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS REPORTING 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
     the Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall 
     submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
     the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report on--
       (1) an analysis of the ability to implement a new category 
     in the Uniform Crime Reporting System and the National 
     Incident-Based Reporting System on aggressive actions, 
     conduct, or other trauma-inducing incidents against law 
     enforcement officers that, as of the date of enactment of 
     this Act, are not reported in such systems;
       (2) the level of detail the category described in paragraph 
     (1) would include and the standard of evidence that would be 
     used for any reported incidents;
       (3) an analysis of how to engage State and local law 
     enforcement agencies in reporting the data described in 
     paragraph (1), despite the fact that such data is beyond the 
     standard crime-based reporting to the systems described in 
     paragraph (1);
       (4) an analysis of potential uses by the Department of 
     Justice and any component agencies of the Department of 
     Justice of the data described in paragraph (1);
       (5) an analysis of the existence and extent of, and reasons 
     for, disparities in the availability and reporting of data 
     between--
       (A) data relating to aggressive actions or other trauma-
     inducing incidents against law enforcement officers that do 
     not rise to the level of crimes; and
       (B) other types of violent crime data; and
       (6) an analysis of additional legislative tools or 
     authorities that may be helpful or necessary to assist in 
     deterring aggressive actions, conduct, or other trauma-
     inducing incidents against law enforcement officers.
       (b) Development.--In developing the report under subsection 
     (a), the Attorney General, the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation, and the Director of the National Institute 
     of Justice shall consult relevant stakeholders, including--
       (1) Federal, State, Tribal, and local law enforcement 
     agencies; and
       (2) nongovernmental organizations, international 
     organizations, academies, or other entities.

     SEC. 5. MENTAL HEALTH AND WELLNESS REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and 
     the Director of the National Institute of Justice, shall 
     submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
     the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report on--
       (1) the types, frequency, and severity of mental health and 
     stress-related responses of law enforcement officers to 
     aggressive actions or other trauma-inducing incidents against 
     law enforcement officers;
       (2) mental health and stress-related resources or programs 
     that are available to law enforcement officers at the 
     Federal, State, and local levels, especially peer-to-peer 
     programs;
       (3) the extent to which law enforcement officers use the 
     resources or programs described in paragraph (2);
       (4) the availability of, or need for, mental health 
     screening within Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     agencies; and
       (5) additional legislative tools or authorities that may be 
     helpful or necessary to assist in assessing, monitoring, and 
     improving the mental health and wellness of Federal, State, 
     and local law enforcement officers.
       (b) Development.--In developing the report required under 
     subsection (a), the Attorney General, the Director of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the 
     National Institute of Justice shall consult relevant 
     stakeholders, including--
       (1) Federal, State, Tribal and local law enforcement 
     agencies; and
       (2) nongovernmental organizations, international 
     organizations, academies, or other entities.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Fry) and the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Mrs. McBath) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 2240.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, police officers risk their lives every day to protect 
our communities. I extend my sincere gratitude to all law enforcement 
officers and their families for their service and sacrifice.

[[Page H2073]]

  Unfortunately, law enforcement officers face the continued threat of 
unprovoked and ambush-style attacks. The bill before us, the Improving 
Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, would 
require the Attorney General to develop a series of reports related to 
violent attacks on law enforcement officers.
  The left's defund the police movement continues to have ripple 
effects throughout the country, as violent crime remains high and 
criminals have become more brazen in their attacks against police 
officers.
  In addition, rogue prosecutors and leftwing bail reform policies 
continue to allow more criminals on the street with no accountability.
  Let me be clear: The threat to officer safety is very real, and we 
must take a stand against any defund the police rhetoric.
  In 2024, 342 officers were killed in the line of duty, with 79 of 
them shot in 61 ambush-style attacks. As of May 1, 2025, 109 officers 
have been shot in the line of duty just this year.
  This violence against law enforcement is unacceptable and underscores 
the importance of this legislation.
  While the government collects basic information on these attacks, 
such as when the attack occurred and what types of weapons are used, 
more information is needed to help law enforcement officers prepare 
for, identify, and prevent future anti-police activity.
  This legislation would also shed light on the mental health 
consequences of the attacks on law enforcement and other trauma law 
enforcement deals with on a daily basis. Mental health resources are 
another critical need for law enforcement officers, as they continue to 
risk their lives every day to keep their communities safe.
  We must take care of those who do so much to take care of us.
  This legislation is common sense. It will gather more information to 
help Congress explore the best possible solutions for our law 
enforcement officers.
  I would like to mention that 146 of my colleagues across the aisle 
voted in favor of this legislation last Congress. It is incredibly 
bipartisan.
  Let's all work together to stand against attacks on law enforcement 
and support our men and women in blue.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this crucial 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Improving Law Enforcement 
Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act.
  Law enforcement officers serve as our lifeline of defense against 
danger. With this bill, we have an opportunity to equip the Department 
of Justice and Congress with very crucial information to better 
understand and enhance officer safety.
  Law enforcement officers deserve to return home safely to their 
families, knowing their well-being is truly a priority. Federal, State, 
local, and Tribal officers face very long hours, immense pressure, and 
unpredictable dangers every day. Over time, the constant strain of the 
job can take a significant toll on their bodies and minds.
  While there are some mental health resources currently available to 
our officers, there is still so much more that we can and should be 
doing to ensure their wellness and, most definitely, their safety.
  By prioritizing data-driven approaches to officer safety and 
wellness, we can address systemic risks, reduce preventable tragedies, 
and build a stronger, more resilient law enforcement system.
  The goal is that the required report will provide us with insight 
into the challenges our officers face and help us to understand the 
additional support that they need to remain physically and mentally 
safe.
  Federal law enforcement officers dedicate themselves to protecting 
our Nation, to protecting our communities, and it is our responsibility 
in this body to ensure that they receive the protection that they 
deserve.

                              {time}  1315

  Law enforcement officers face unparalleled risks every day, from 
physical violence to psychological traumas. According to the FBI, 
assaults against officers remain very, very high, with tens of 
thousands of them who are injured annually.
  Beyond the line of duty, officers experience higher rates of PTSD, 
depression, and suicide compared to the general population. Yet, for 
too long, this body, Congress, has not done as much as we should to 
tackle these issues that they face.
  This bill requires the collection and analysis of critical data on 
attacks on officers, injuries that they suffer, their mental health 
challenges, and wellness program effectiveness. Without accurate data, 
we are fighting blind.
  By identifying trends, such as the frequency of attacks on officers 
or gaps in mental health support, we can implement targeted solutions 
to keep our officers safe and to keep them healthy.
  Many officer fatalities and injuries are preventable with better 
training, better equipment, and better policies. For example, if data 
reveals that a significant number of injuries occurred during traffic 
stops, agencies can adopt safer tactics or deploy new technologies. If 
certain regions report higher rates of firearm-related fatalities, we 
can prioritize resources there.
  Officer suicide rates outpace line-of-duty deaths. I will say this 
again: Officer suicide rates outpace line-of-duty deaths. Yet, stigma 
and inadequate resources prevent many of them from seeking help. This 
bill will help us track mental health trends, evaluate the 
effectiveness of peer support programs, and expand access to 
counseling. Healthy officers are better officers. They are more 
effective officers, both for their own well-being and for the 
communities that they serve.
  When officers are safer, healthier, and better supported, they are 
better equipped to serve with professionalism and with empathy. Our 
communities benefit when law enforcement agencies are operating using 
data to improve practices rather than reacting to crises.
  Yet, the Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness 
Through Data Act isn't just about gathering data and reporting 
statistics. It is about lives, and it is about public safety. It is 
about the officer who returns home safely to their family at night. It 
is about the rookie who gets lifesaving training, or the veteran who 
receives mental health care instead of suffering in silence.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are to realize any of these benefits, this bill 
must be the first step that we take and definitely not the last. We 
must be prepared to act on the information that we get from these 
reports that come from this bill, much of which is already collected by 
the DOJ and other agencies. We must be prepared to provide tangible 
resources to our law enforcement, which I am sure the reports will 
suggest that they need.
  As we observe National Police Week and talk about officer safety and 
wellness, I would be remiss if I did not call for the immediate 
restoration of hundreds of millions of dollars that are affecting 
nearly 40 States in public safety grant funding that the Department of 
Justice chose to abruptly terminate. Some of that canceled funding went 
to law enforcement training; support and other critical resources; and, 
more specifically, to addressing the health, safety, and wellness of 
law enforcement.
  As I have here, President Trump's 2026 budget would have devastating 
impacts on public policy by cutting $1 billion across 40 Department of 
Justice grant programs which support police departments and reduce 
violent crime, hate crime, and crime against women.
  Mr. Speaker, $646 million from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, FEMA, for violence and terrorism has been terminated. I can go 
on and on, but I won't.
  These terminations include a grant totaled at over $8 million to the 
National Policing Institute, which assisted rural police departments 
and district attorneys' offices to pay for violent crime investigators 
and programs to combat child sex abuse.
  I also feel that it is necessary to mention once again, as the 
ranking member has, the plaque that we voted to hang in the Capitol 
more than 3 years ago to honor the countless officers who fought--and 
they died--to protect the lives of Members of Congress, all of us in 
this body. They not only fought to protect Members of Congress but 
staffers and other personnel and to save our democracy on January 6, 
2021.

[[Page H2074]]

  Mr. Speaker, hanging this plaque is the least that we could do to 
honor those who have fought and died and given their lives for us, this 
body. Hanging this plaque is required by law, a law that was passed. We 
passed the law over 3 years ago.
  Why is this plaque not up? That is a simple question. Why is this law 
being defied? That is a simple question.
  Many of those officers have been left feeling ignored and betrayed by 
the very same Members of Congress. They stand outside every single day 
to protect and watch over us. They feel betrayed.
  Many times, they can't even look at us as we walk out the door 
because they feel betrayed. They fought to protect us on that day, 
January 6, and, yes, we still betray them.
  Former U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell recently told our 
staff: Trump is treating the rioters like they were the ones defending 
the Capitol.
  He went on to say of Trump: Calling January 6 ``a day of love,'' if 
that was a day of love, ``They almost `loved' me to death.''
  If we really intend to support our officers, they should not be 
feeling this level of betrayal and disappointment in the government 
that they swore to defend and protect. Officers who put their lives on 
the line for us deserve better.
  Mr. Speaker, I will take a point of privilege to say that when I lost 
my son, Jordan, in Jacksonville, Florida, on November 23, 2012, at a 
convenience store gas station by a man who never should have had a gun, 
that convenience store family, the owners, at least had the decency to 
put a plaque up in remembrance of my slain son, who was simply stopping 
to get some chewing gum as he was going from one mall to the next with 
his friends. They at least had the decency, and my son wasn't doing 
anything to protect the Nation or protect Members of Congress. Yet and 
still, out of dignity and respect for someone who was slain 
unnecessarily, they at least had the decency to put up a plaque in 
remembrance of my son.

  We should no less do that for these folks who stand here every single 
day. They would take bullets for us. Let's do the right thing. Why 
would we not honor them? We can't say one thing and do another, that we 
want to serve and protect them. We want to make their lives better. The 
American people are watching us. They are depending on us.
  Mr. Speaker, let's do the right thing. Simply just put this plaque 
out for all of us, for their service to us and to this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, while I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, 
I also urge them to do more than just collect data and request reports 
from other officials. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore), my good friend and the 
bill's primary sponsor.
  Mr. MOORE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2240, the Improving Law 
Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, a bill that I 
introduced in response to the deeply troubling rise in targeted 
violence against our Nation's law enforcement.
  Every day, officers across this great Nation put their lives on the 
line to keep our communities safe. Far too often, they, in fact, become 
the targets of violence simply for wearing the badge. This year alone--
this year alone, again--we are only in May--there have been 109 
officers shot in the line of duty, 12 of whom tragically lost their 
lives.
  Mr. Speaker, even more alarming is there have been 21 ambush-style 
attacks on law enforcement officers this year, resulting in 25 officers 
shot, 5 of whom were killed. These numbers do not account, though, even 
for the many instances where officers were fired upon but, fortunately, 
were not struck.
  Mr. Speaker, ambush-style attacks are some of the most dangerous. 
They are calculated and often deadly, leading to higher rates of both 
injuries and fatalities. That is why I introduced this legislation to 
ensure that we are doing all that we can at the Federal level to 
understand, prevent, and respond to these targeted attacks.
  The Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through 
Data Act enhances our ability to collect and, more importantly, to 
analyze data on violent acts against officers. This will empower 
agencies around the country with the information that they need to 
strengthen their responses and better protect their personnel.
  Importantly, H.R. 2240 also calls for a comprehensive assessment of 
availability and use of mental health resources within law enforcement 
because protecting those who protect us must include supporting their 
mental well-being. We need to make sure that we get away from any shame 
that can sometimes happen when a law enforcement officer needs to reach 
out for some kind of mental health counseling.
  If the Speaker would think about it, these men and women oftentimes 
see the worst of folks. They see folks who are in their worst state. 
They see the tragedies that hopefully most of us will go through life 
and never have to see, and they do it every day, day in and day out, 
because it is their job that they have chosen to do to keep us safe.
  Mr. Speaker, these officers answer the call, day or night. They don't 
have a choice as to what they respond to. They run toward danger to 
safeguard our neighborhoods, and far too often, they pay a heavy price. 
We owe them more than our gratitude. We owe them action.
  Mr. Speaker, I say this: There were a couple of comments about past 
events, some which happened before I came here as a new Member. Yet, I 
do remember very well the spring of 2020, when we saw many of our 
cities burned, looted, and destroyed. Some of them have not yet even 
recovered. Instead of law enforcement being supported by some in those 
local governments, they were vilified when they were out doing what 
they could to try to help. They were told to stand down and allow mobs 
to go in and destroy property.
  I saw that firsthand, Mr. Speaker, in Raleigh. I literally watched 
folks roaming around and destroying windows, burning vehicles, 
shooting, all this kind of mayhem. I won't mention names, but I saw 
some colleagues on the other side who would kind of give cover and say: 
Well, it was understandable. It was a peaceful protest.
  It is not a peaceful protest if you are destroying buildings. It is 
not a peaceful protest if you are attacking someone. It is not a 
peaceful protest if you are burning buildings, burning cars, and 
engaging in violent conduct.
  Then we saw from that some of this antipolice that came about, the 
calls to defund the police. I am glad to see that I don't hear that 
very much anymore. I hope that foolish idea never gets raised again in 
this great Chamber because if it were not for the men and women in law 
enforcement, it would be a society of disorder and random violence. We 
owe these men and women all that we can do for them. We owe it to them 
to make sure that their jobs are safe.
  Mr. Speaker, I think about a situation that happened in Wake County, 
North Carolina, in 2022, where a sheriff's deputy was ambushed and 
killed by an illegal immigrant. I am not trying to open up the debate 
on illegal immigration. Fortunately, this body has taken action, along 
with our President, to secure the border and to stop gang members from 
coming into this country.
  Yet, someone who was in this country who shouldn't have even been 
here attacked and ambushed a Wake County deputy and killed him. These 
stories happen around the country.
  This is one more piece--one more piece--in finally bringing some 
sanity, bringing some protection and providing protection for the 
American people, to make sure that they are not having to worry about 
gang members being allowed into the country, that we are not allowing 
illegal immigration to run amuck, and that we are not downing the 
police and somehow lifting up the criminals.
  The American people were tired of that. They were tired of it. And 
guess what? They are getting results. This is one more piece to try to 
do this to help these men and women in law enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the body's support. I encourage all of the 
Members to vote for it.

                              {time}  1330

  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

[[Page H2075]]

  

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McBath for her 
extraordinary leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Improving Law Enforcement Officer 
Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, which seeks to improve law 
enforcement officer safety and wellness by requiring that the AG and 
other Federal officials issue regular reports on attacks on police 
officers, aggression against police officers, and on officer mental 
health.
  I salute Mr. Fry, a freshman to this body, for his stewardship of 
this bill. The collection of this information is important and useful, 
but the mere passive gathering of data does little or nothing to 
actually improve officer effectiveness or public safety.
  In fact, none of the bills we have considered from the majority 
during this law enforcement week would actually produce any measurable 
gains in public safety.
  We spent the week voting for bills that will do nothing really but 
increase the number of weapons on our streets, our buses, our trains, 
our subways, parks, restaurants, and in our schools. That is a strange 
way to improve public safety or aid law enforcement in doing their 
jobs.
  Now, there are things we can actually do to improve public safety.
  Mr. Speaker, forgive me. I know Mr. Fry is in his second term, not in 
his first term. He is a valuable member of our committee.
  Mr. Speaker, the last gentleman to speak said he never wanted to hear 
about defunding the police again, and I agree with him completely.
  The problem is, he is about to hear about it because DOGE is 
defunding the police as we speak and, unfortunately, with your 
cooperation and your passivity, they are getting away with it.
  Now, this self-anointed fourth branch of government, DOGE, which I 
think is getting run out of town right now because of its rank 
incompetence and lawless assaults on the privacy data of hundreds of 
millions of Americans and its unlawful summary mass firings of 
professional civil servants like air traffic controllers, food and drug 
inspectors, pediatric cancer researchers in my district, Forest 
Service, and firefighters. They are getting run out of town now. I 
don't hear a lot about Elon Musk. He has lost some elections for my 
friends across the aisle, so they are trying to let him sink into 
anonymity, but he has done his damage.
  Over at the Department of Justice--and I have got to correct myself. 
I was saying that his employee, who I can identify now as Tarak 
Makecha, was responsible for slashing more than $500 million in public 
safety, local law enforcement, and victim assistance organizations 
across the country. Although that was technically correct, more than 
$500 million, it really understates the gravity of this offense against 
public safety. It was $811 million in grants that were terminated.
  Now, understand what a grievous assault this is on our system of 
government. Congress passes budgets. They are initiated here in the 
House of Representatives. We voted to appropriate that money to the 
Department of Justice. The House voted for it. The Senate voted for it. 
It was signed into law by the President. The money went to the 
Department of Justice. It was programmed for those purposes. $811 
million was awarded to each of those grantees and now we have got some 
reportage explaining what happened. It all came down to this one guy, 
Tarak Makecha, working for Elon Musk.
  Did anybody elect him around here? Did anybody confirm him for any 
job? I don't think so.
  He wrote some memos under the authority of dusk, which now I think is 
an invalidated, discredited authority if you read the opinion from the 
Federal District Court of Northern California on Friday night because 
they remember how the Constitution works.
  We don't have a fourth branch of government called Elon Musk or Tarak 
Makecha. This guy wrote memos to the deputy attorney general demanding 
that all of these grants to law enforcement and public safety and 
victim assistance groups across the country in our districts be 
deleted. He wouldn't rest until they were deleted. They were deleted so 
he said he could report it to his superiors and to the White House.
  Now, why aren't we using this valuable time not just to pass a mere 
reporting bill, which is fine, but how about an action bill?
  How about a bill that restores hundreds of millions of dollars to 
actually promoting criminal law enforcement, public safety, aid to 
victims of rape and sexual assaults, organizations fighting child 
sexual abuse across the country? Why don't we do that?
  Why don't we just pierce the fog of rhetoric a little bit and get 
down to something that is actually happening?
  Then we can follow that up with what I think would be a significant 
symbolic statement, as Mrs. McBath urges us to do, let's put up the 
plaque to honor the officers who defended us against the rampage of 
January 6.
  The gentleman from North Carolina, I think, tried to change the 
subject as if one mob rampage justifies another. I am against all mob 
violence. I am against all mob rampages. I don't feel like I have to 
speak out against one of them. If I can't speak out against the one 
that comes to our House, who will trust me to speak out against mob 
violence anywhere else? I denounce it wherever it takes place, under 
whatever guise, under any ideological auspice at all. I denounce mob 
violence.
  I challenge my friend from North Carolina to find me one Democratic 
official who incited violent insurrection or incited mob violence on 
that day because I will tell you, this Chamber voted to impeach that 
President who incited mob violence against us in a sweeping bipartisan 
vote, Democrats and Republicans, together. Then the Senate voted 57-43.
  The President, in his inimitable way, was able to beat the 
constitutional odds, but nonetheless, commanding majorities of both 
Chambers found that he incited violence against us in order to 
overthrow a Presidential election he had lost by more than 7 million 
votes.

  Find me a Democratic Governor who pardoned any of the mobsters or the 
violent insurrectionists or people burning down buildings. Can you find 
me one? Can you find me any Democratic politician who wants to honor 
those people? Can you?
  I can show you a United States President today who seems to think 
that it was the rioters and insurrectionists who deserve honor and 
praise.
  Don't give me any false analogy or false comparison. We denounce 
violence everywhere.
  Will our colleagues have the courage to ask for the plaque honoring 
the police officers who opposed the violence that came right into this 
Chamber? I can hear them chanting: ``Hang Mike Pence. Hang Mike 
Pence.''
  Remember him? He was the Republican Vice President of the United 
States, and they chased him out. Now, they would like his memory to go 
down that Orwellian black hole so nobody remembers him or so nobody 
remembers the things the Republicans said. They called it terrorism at 
the time, but now it is inconvenient.
  Donald Trump doesn't want police officers being honored for the work 
they did defending our Constitution, our democracy, our Capitol, and 
the Members of Congress, including people who sit on that side of the 
aisle as well as the Members who sit on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Evans of Colorado). Members are reminded 
to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Harris).
  Mr. HARRIS of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, a little over 1 year ago, 
four law enforcement heroes in North Carolina lost their lives 
protecting the public from an armed and highly dangerous felon. They 
showed up to work that morning like it was just another day. They gave 
the ultimate sacrifice for the Charlotte, North Carolina, community.
  However, instead of acknowledging the danger that police officers 
willingly put themselves in every day and standing behind our men and 
women in blue, some radical progressives on the left would rather 
defund the police or even abolish them entirely, but not me and not my 
colleagues that are here with me today.
  This National Police Week, I am honored to stand behind our law 
enforcement as they keep our communities safe. I am especially proud to 
stand

[[Page H2076]]

today and speak on behalf of H.R. 2240, the Improving Law Enforcement 
Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act.
  As I read this bill, one disturbing fact caught my eye: In 2022, 30 
percent of the murders of police officers were unprovoked ambushes. 
This is unconscionable. As a pastor at First Baptist Church, Charlotte, 
North Carolina, I actually witnessed and saw families suffering and 
hurting of police officers that were murdered in just this way.
  Police officers are community leaders and public servants who deserve 
the respect of the country. Instead, it seems coldblooded killers have 
been deliberately targeting our law enforcement heroes, and it is now 
more important than ever not to just talk but to act.
  I am confident that Congressman Moore's bill will accomplish just 
that. Our Nation's police are under constant attack and they need 
Congress' steadfast support. This bill will shine a light on the 
threats that law enforcement face, threats that have steeply risen in 
number ever since the left began its dangerous defund the police 
rhetoric, and it will begin the process of expanding the resources 
available to law enforcement officials.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to join me in supporting the 
Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act, 
and let's ensure that our Nation's police forces know that we have 
their back.
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Ms. Elfreth).
  Ms. ELFRETH. Mr. Speaker, local law enforcement officers bravely and 
tirelessly work to protect our communities day in and day out. The 
situations that these law enforcement officers encounter put them, as 
we all know, at an increased risk of developing mental health 
disorders, including PTSD, depression, and anxiety.
  This Police Week, I thank the sponsors of the bill, my colleagues 
across the aisle, for introducing H.R. 2240, the Improving Law 
Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act.
  I did offer an amendment to require that the Department of Justice 
include recommendations on improving training programs for domestic 
violence cases because far too often our local law enforcement officers 
are at the front lines of response to domestic violence cases. These 
situations not only need to be handled carefully with specialized 
training, but they also take a toll on officers' own well-being.

  While this amendment was not made in order, I rise today because I 
believe it is essential to address the issues of domestic violence and 
the mental health of our officers in a bipartisan manner.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle in 
addressing this critical need and continuing to address these issues 
together.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will just spend a little bit more time speaking. Not 
only are my colleagues apparently letting DOGE get away with 
terminating the Department of Justice grant programs, but they are also 
attempting to rob Federal law enforcement officers of their hard-earned 
retirement benefits.
  I will put on the Record that, unlike other Federal employees, 
Federal law enforcement officers are eligible to retire voluntarily 
after serving our country for at least 20 years and reaching the age of 
50 or after 25 years of service at any age.
  Now, the Special Retirement Supplement for Federal officers provides 
roughly one-third of a Federal officer's retirement benefits, bridging 
the financial gap between when an officer chooses to retire and when 
they become eligible for Social Security at age 62.
  This Special Retirement Supplement ensures financial stability for 
those who have dedicated their lives and their careers to protecting 
this country, but our Republican colleagues, their reconciliation bill, 
would limit the supplement only to those who reach the mandatory 
retirement age of 57 no matter how many years they have served.
  It would also apply not just to new hires but to all officers, to 
those who clearly earned the ability to claim this benefit and didn't 
sign up for this new rule. The moment Trump signs the reconciliation 
bill into law, any officer that retires before reaching the age of 57 
would lose one-third of their retirement benefits, making voluntary 
retirement untenable for every Federal law enforcement officer who is 
at or near retirement.

                              {time}  1345

  Cutting the supplement would have an immediate effect on the 
retention of overburdened, increasingly demoralized officers across the 
Federal Government, creating an overwhelming incentive for tens of 
thousands of eligible officers to retire before they plan to, before 
this change becomes law.
  In closing, it is National Police Week, and we are honoring the brave 
men and women in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every 
single day to protect our communities and this Nation.
  I was proud to vote ``yes'' on this resolution on the House floor 
yesterday to express our Nation's gratitude to our law enforcement. I 
would also like to thank all the families for their courage and 
strength because families of law enforcement are part of this, too.
  As ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee, I hear directly from 
families and officers from all across the country about the reforms 
that they desperately need. I will continue to champion bills that 
provide tools that help our law enforcement officers and keep them all 
safe because they deserve that.
  We stand with all of our officers around the country, whether they be 
Federal, State, or local, and we thank them for their service.
  Though I really wish that we were doing so much more this week to 
make our officers safe or to invest in resources for their well-being, 
I will support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the 
very same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no 
shortage of us who are attorneys or at least former attorneys on this 
floor. One of the things, of course, is when we hear information, we 
want to run it down and sometimes correct the record.
  My good friend from Maryland pointed out about some sort of cuts from 
DOGE that would affect law enforcement, so I immediately wanted to look 
and see what he possibly could be talking about. I think what the 
gentleman was talking about were a couple things.
  One was getting rid of a $250,000 grant, funding for jailed trans 
inmates working with incarcerated transgender individuals providing 
gender-affirming care to include housing in gender-appropriate 
facilities. Actually, I think that is a pretty good thing to get rid of 
so we can put more resources in to helping law enforcement.
  Next is $2 million for some sort of national listening session for, 
as I understand it, criminal defendants.
  Then we have $695,000 for a parallel convergent mixed-methods case 
study. I don't even know what that means, a parallel convergent mixed-
methods case study research designed to assess the efficacy of police 
departments' LGBTQ liaison services.
  I think one of the things with this reconciliation bill and with the 
actions of President Trump is to get rid of the waste and to put the 
resources to helping our men and women in law enforcement.
  During National Police Week, as we are honoring police, while we have 
a few differences of opinion and may disagree on a few other matters, I 
am at least comforted by the fact of knowing that we all, on both sides 
of the aisle, do support law enforcement.
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath) 
has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.

[[Page H2077]]

  

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman stirred me out of my stupor 
there by coming back with a couple of grants that apparently were 
eliminated. I will take his word for it. If I did the internal math 
correctly, that was less than $2 million out of $811 million cut in 
awards that were made by the Department of Justice to local law 
enforcement citizen community safety groups, and so on across the 
country.
  Now, apparently there are certain grants that the gentleman doesn't 
want ever to go out. For example, I take it the gentleman doesn't think 
very highly of anything having to do with citizens who are transgender. 
We differ about that, apparently, because I think everybody has civil 
rights and everybody's voice needs to be heard.
  In any event, that needs to be brought up in the Appropriations 
Committee where we can vote on it democratically. That should not be up 
to one of Elon Musk's midnight riders, a computer hacker who comes in 
and simply decides to wipe out all of the handiwork of the United 
States House of Representatives and the United States Senate signed 
into law by the President and then awarded by the Department of 
Justice.
  We do not have a fourth branch of government here, which is what the 
Federal District Court, Northern California, was saying on Friday.
  Are my colleagues aware that there have been more than 250 cases 
brought against the reign of lawlessness and authoritarianism brought 
down on America in the first 5 months of the Trump administration? 
There are 156 preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders 
right now.
  A couple of hours ago, the Supreme Court heard the case about Donald 
Trump in an executive order trying to destroy birthright citizenship in 
America. Every sixth grader in America knows that if you are born in 
America, you are a citizen of the United States. They tried to reverse 
that. That got struck down by four courts.
  They call them radical left rogue judges. Well, two of the ones who 
struck it down were Democratic appointees, one by President Obama and 
one by President Biden. The other two were Republican appointees, one 
appointed by President Bush and one appointed by President Reagan, who 
said that in his four decades on the bench he had never seen a more 
unconstitutional law than that one. He had never seen an easier case 
than that one.

  You don't have to be a lawyer to understand what is wrong with that. 
You just have to know how to read. The first sentence of the 14th 
Amendment says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, 
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United 
States. . . . `'
  These people are finger painting all over the Constitution. They are 
usurping the rule of law as adopted by the Congress of the United 
States. They are creating new branches of government. I am glad that 
they finally ran Elon Musk out of town because he was no longer 
politically useful to him, but in the meantime we have to deal with the 
wreckage.
  If he, by accident, did something the gentleman agrees with, bully 
for him, great, but in the meantime, he has undone the will of 
Congress. He has nullified and canceled hundreds of millions of dollars 
going out to public safety and criminal law enforcement across America.
  Let's get back to the rule of law. Let's get back to law enforcement.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield 
myself the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have said earlier, while I do really support this 
legislation, I also call on my colleagues to stand with law enforcement 
by restoring these critical grants commemorating the bravery of our 
officers on January 6 and every day, protecting their pay, protecting 
their benefits, and all that the Federal officers have earned over the 
course of the time that they have served their communities and this 
country and ensuring that every Federal agency can continue to provide 
critical assistance to our State and local law enforcement.
  We can do a lot better. They deserve so much better from us. Let's 
please work to do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This is an incredibly commonsense and bipartisan piece of 
legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Law enforcement 
has been demonized and attacked. They have been defunded in leftwing 
jurisdictions many years ago.
  I hope that that movement is forever in the dustbin of our history 
because we owe it to law enforcement to support them in any number of 
ways that we can as policymakers. One of the easiest ways, in my mind, 
is this bill. Data is incredibly important, Mr. Speaker. You know this 
firsthand. Data is incredibly important. Understanding these attacks on 
our law enforcement, how it is affected by the officer, how these 
things occur, where they occur, these data points are incredibly 
important to understand and protect our law enforcement.
  Last year, I think all of the Republicans and the vast majority of my 
Democratic colleagues supported this very measure. I hope that this 
year even more Democrats will support it and that it will be signed 
into law because this data is incredibly important to make sure that we 
protect our law enforcement officers. This is just a small way that we 
can advance that initiative forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 405, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________