Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1404 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. general leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania reciting the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee's greatest hits, but let me remind people who are watching why we are here today. We are here today to move two important pieces of legislation forward; one that would help 9/11 families, which I hope we all can agree is worth supporting; and the second is to make sure that the government doesn't shut down; that we continue to provide funding that will help aid some of the natural disasters that we are seeing happen all over this country. While it is too early to have a damage assessment from Hurricane Ian and actually know what the true cost of all this is going to be, make no mistake, this CR will help. There is money for 2022 disasters and community development block grants for disaster recovery above the OMB request. More importantly, we included language to give FEMA a full year's worth of funding up front, not just for the 2\1/2\-month CR period; and more help will come for Florida, as we find out what is needed. Communities across America are currently dealing with record-breaking numbers of storms. According to The Washington Post this morning, ``Since 2017, an unprecedented number of storms rated Category 4 or stronger have lashed the U.S. shoreline: Harvey, Irma, Maria, Michael, Laura, Ida, and now Ian. They all qualify as `rapid intensification events,' when a storm's wind speeds increase by at least 35 miles within 24 hours.'' People should read The Washington Post about what is happening as a result of these storms. We have an obligation to help all of these communities. But you know what won't help? A government shutdown in the midst of a natural disaster of this magnitude. Again, I would point out to my colleagues here, we think it is unacceptable to ever shut down the Federal Government. My Republican friends obviously have a different point of view because when they were in charge, when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, they shut the government down, the longest government shutdown in our history, and it was costly. To even contemplate doing that in the face of these natural disasters is unbelievable. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and I hope that she will vote for the rule because if the rule doesn't pass, we can't bring this bill up for a vote. I agree with her; this is incredibly important. So I hope all my colleagues will vote for the rule, not just to help 9/11 families, but also to keep the government open during this really critical time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am embarrassed for my friends on the other side of the aisle. I just saw the bill. I am looking at the bill, and all it does is ask for more reports, more paperwork. I don't know. I kind of think it is silly that that is going to fight crime, asking for more reports and more paperwork. Give me a break. We are here today, Madam Speaker, to try to bring two important bills to the floor, one to help 9/11 families and the other, Madam Speaker, to keep the government open because if it shuts down amidst all of these natural disasters, things are going to be incredibly worse for everybody who right now is suffering. And this is what they come to the floor with? This is what they want to talk about? If you want to talk about what they are about, let's look at their poorly named ``Commitment to America,'' which I guess is a rip-off on Contract with America, which basically would gut Social Security and Medicare. They want to ban abortion nationwide, and they want to make it easier for people to overturn the will of the American people in elections. I mean, that is the radical agenda they are all pushing here. Here we are, at this moment, trying to make sure that essential funding is there to help deal with these natural disasters, and this is what we get? This is like we hear the greatest hits from the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. They use Russian B-roll in their rollout of their Commitment to America. Come on. At this moment, right now, we have two bills that, quite frankly, should enjoy huge bipartisan support. We ought to move forward to help the 9/11 families, and at the same time, we ought to keep this government open. Then, that gives us time to work out a longer term bill, which we can vote on after the election. But turn on the news. Look at what is happening in Florida right now. Look at what happened in Puerto Rico. Look at what is happening in Alaska. People need help. We have a responsibility. Look at what is happening in Ukraine. Do we support helping preserve democracy in Ukraine or not? That is what is at stake here. So, we can try to cut a political ad on the House floor here. Fine. But let's not kind of make-believe that what my friends are trying to do is somehow real or will make any kind of a difference. It is a sound bite, plain and simple. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend can yell all that she wants, but what I took exception to is the fact that a proposal that essentially does nothing more than call for more reports to be sent to the Committee on the Judiciary is somehow fighting crime. I would also tell my friends, let's not talk about defunding the police when my friends on the other side of the aisle have Members that are now selling T-shirts to defund the FBI and law enforcement or the fact that many of them voted against bills last week that actually provided more funding to the police. Come on. Reports somehow are going to fight crime? I mean, if that is your crime-fighting solution, well, America is in trouble. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say this again: a reporting requirement. I mean, all of us are against violent crime, and we are against all the things that the gentleman listed. That is why we brought a group of bills to the floor last week to try to deal with some of these challenges. Again, many of my Republican colleagues voted against it. I am not questioning why my friends bring these items to the floor. I know why they do it. It is politics 101. But I do have to say that I do have a problem when they come to the floor and say that they are making a proposal that will somehow do something. A reporting requirement, more paperwork to the Committee on the Judiciary, oh, boy, that is really going to stop carjackings, that is going to stop murder. Give me a break. If you want to come up with something that actually does something, we are all willing to work with you. But to come to the floor to say, oh, a reporting requirement, more paperwork going to the Committee on the Judiciary is somehow going to do something to prevent crime, I mean, I don't know anybody who believes that. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), but I will take exception with his characterization of us passing messaging bills. Let me just go through a few items here that we did pass and that have been signed into law: The Honoring our PACT Act for our veterans. The Inflation Reduction Act. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the biggest investment in infrastructure ever in this country. A bill, by the way, that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against, but they were at the announcement of moneys to rebuild bridges and roads in their district even though they voted against it. The Postal Service Reform Act. Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act. The American Rescue Plan Act. I could go on and on and on. These aren't messaging bills. These are major investments in our country that will have an impact for generations, that will help our children, that will help our senior citizens, that will help our veterans. This is what we are supposed to be doing, helping uplift the American people, investing in our country. So that is not messaging. That is real work. Today's bills aren't messaging bills, either. I mean, helping 9/11 families. That is not a messaging bill. That is real. It is something we should do. We ought to be together on that. This continuing resolution, this is important, especially in light of all the natural disasters that are happening in this country right now. Madam Speaker, this should be simple. We have an obligation to fund the government. We have a bipartisan bill, again, that had 72 votes in the Senate. We have a bipartisan bill that not only will keep the lights on but will provide critical funding to help communities devastated by recent natural disasters. Now, House Republicans have made it clear that they would rather brag about their dangerous, extreme, unpopular agenda than do real work. All I can say to that is that Democrats are committed to putting people over politics. The Republicans' radical agenda bans abortion, and we want to protect Americans' right to affordable, accessible healthcare and safeguard America's right to reproductive care. We are here to defend Americans' right to vote. They want to make it easier to overturn elections. We want to protect Social Security. You saw the agenda that the Republican leaders in the Senate unveiled. They gut Social Security. There is a contrast here. But today, we are here to advance relief for communities hit by natural disasters, pass overdue benefits for 9/ 11 families, and keep the government running. What does putting people over politics mean? It means that we come together to make sure that the people of Florida have what they need to get through this terrible disaster. It means that we are there for the people of Puerto Rico and that we are there for the people of Alaska, that we are there for people anywhere in this country, whether it is a red State or blue State, who are dealing with these natural catastrophes. That is what this is about. If this went down and we shut the government down, the pain that people are already dealing with would only increase. Shame on us for doing that. Now, I get it, Madam Speaker. There are some people here who don't really care about whether the government stays open or shuts down. I remind you again, when my friends were in charge, when the Republicans controlled the House, when they controlled the Senate, when they controlled the White House, they shut the government down. They walked away. The longest shutdown in history. Billions and billions and billions of dollars it cost our economy. We had to clean up their mess when we took over. Today, we are doing what is right for the American people, for all people. This is not about politics. This is about putting people over politics. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1377 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1377, providing for consideration of four measures: H.R. 4118, H.R. 6448; H.R. 5768, and H.R. 8542, all under closed rules. For H.R. 4118 and H.R. 6448, the rule provides 30 minutes of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary for each bill and motions to recommit for each measure. For H.R. 5768, the rule provides 30 minutes of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Nadler, and provides a motion to recommit. For H.R. 8542, the bill provides 30 minutes of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and a motion to recommit. Madam Speaker, Democrats in this Congress have been focused on building safer communities since day one. We believe that every child in America deserves the safety and security of growing up in a community free from violence, trusting that the people who keep them safe will do that regardless of the color of their skin or the ZIP Code that they live in. We believe that the need to fight crime and improve safety in our communities should unite us, not divide us. These are good bills that we are considering today that will make our communities safer. The Mental Health Justice Act creates a grant program for States and local governments to train and dispatch mental health professionals to respond to emergencies that involve people with behavioral needs. The VICTIM Act establishes a grant program to hire, train, and retain detectives and victim services personnel to investigate shootings and support victims. The Break the Cycle of Violence Act provides grants to communities for evidence-based community violence intervention and prevention programs designed to interrupt cycles of violence. The Invest to Protect Act creates a grant program to provide police departments of fewer than 125 officers training resources for calls involving people with substance use disorders, mental health needs, and for people with disabilities. I am glad that we are moving forward today. I am thankful to my colleagues who have worked on these bills. Do I want more? Of course. Will I keep fighting for us to do more? Absolutely. The truth is we still haven't made meaningful gains when it comes to accountability. The House passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Sadly, the Senate is yet to act on that bill. But I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, and if you don't like what is in one of these bills or all of them, then you can vote against them. But I strongly urge everybody on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on the rule so we can at least move this forward and have the opportunity to debate these measures. I am confident that many of the provisions of these four bills will help save lives. But this conversation can't end here. We need to keep making our communities safer in new, innovative, and imaginative ways. We can start by passing this rule and passing the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague from Minnesota and appreciate serving with her on the Rules Committee, but I think the only talk about politics here is from the gentlewoman from Minnesota. She talks about defunding the police. The bills that are before us are grant programs. So I am not sure what she is talking about. If you want to talk about politics, fine, let's talk about voting records. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Washington Post article titled ``21 House Republicans vote against awarding Congressional Gold Medal to all police officers who responded on January 6.'' [From the Washington Post, June 15, 2022] 21 House Republicans Vote Against Awarding Congressional Gold Medal to All Police Officers Who Responded on Jan. 6 (By Felicia Sonmez) Twenty-one House Republicans on Tuesday voted against awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to all police officers who responded to the Jan. 6 violent attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob. The measure passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support from 406 lawmakers. But the 21 Republicans who voted ``no'' drew immediate condemnation from some of their colleagues, and the vote underscored the lingering tensions in Congress amid efforts by some GOP lawmakers to whitewash the events of that day. Rep. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-Va.) called the ``no'' votes ``a sad commentary on the @HouseGOP,'' while Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) declared, ``How you can vote no to this is beyond me.'' ``Then again, denying an insurrection is as well,'' Kinzinger, a vocal critic of former president Donald Trump, said in a tweet. ``To the brave Capitol (and DC metro PD) thank you. To the 21: they will continue to defend your right to vote no anyway.'' In an interview on CNN Tuesday night, Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.) called the 21 ``no'' votes ``a new low for this crowd.'' ``They voted to overturn an election. But in their vote today, they kind of sealed the deal of basically affiliating with the mob,'' Connolly said. ``They now are part of the insurrectionist mob. They brought enormous disrepute and dishonor on themselves in not honoring the brave men and women who defended the Capitol of the United States-- everybody in it, but also defending the symbol of democracy in the world, not just here in the United States.'' In March, when an initial version of the legislation was brought to the House floor, a dozen Republicans voted against the measure. Many of those who voted ``no'' said they objected to the use of the term ``insurrectionists'' in the resolution. Those GOP lawmakers included Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Andy Harris (Md.), Lance Gooden (Tex.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), Michael Cloud (Tex.), Andrew S. Clyde (Ga.), Greg Steube (Fla.), Bob Good (Va.) and John Rose (Tenn.). The House and Senate then remained in a standoff for three months over whether to honor all law enforcement who responded on Jan. 6 or to award the Congressional Gold Medal to one officer in particular, Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman, who single-handedly diverted an angry mob away from the Senate chamber. The Senate had already unanimously voted to give the Gold Medal exclusively to Goodman. The medal, bestowed by Congress, is a symbol of national appreciation for distinguished achievements. Ultimately, both chambers agreed to slightly modify the House legislation. Four Gold Medals will be awarded: one for the Capitol Police, one for the D.C. police, another for the Smithsonian Institution and another to be displayed inside the Capitol building along with a plaque that names all law enforcement agencies who helped repel the rioters that day. On Tuesday, Gooden, one of the 12 House Republicans who voted against the legislation in March, voted in favor of the new bill. But the number of opposing votes grew, with 10 other House Republicans switching their votes from ``yes'' to ``no.'' Those Republicans are Reps. Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Barry Moore (Ala.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Matthew M. Rosendale (Mont.), Chip Roy (Tex.), Paul A. Gosar (Ariz.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Scott Perry (Pa.), Jody Hice (Ga.) and Mary Miller (Ill.). Some of those who voted ``no'' on Tuesday said they objected to the use of the words ``temple'' or ``insurrection'' in the resolution. ``I wouldn't call it an insurrection,'' Greene said, according to Politico. Some House Republicans, such as Clyde, have sought to recast the violent mob's actions on Jan. 6 as little different from a ``normal tourist visit'' to the Capitol. Others have sought to play down that day's events in different ways. During the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, rioters attempted to break into the House chamber, punching and busting glass, resulting in the death of Ashli Babbitt, whom police shot when she attempted to climb through a shattered glass door. Gosar has previously claimed that Babbitt had been ``executed''--even though she defied police warnings and the officer who fatally shot her was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. Gosar did so again Tuesday, claiming during a House hearing that a Capitol Police officer was ``lying in wait'' for Babbitt and that she was ``executed,'' Politico reported. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who was ousted from House Republican leadership over her criticism of Trump's role in the Jan. 6 insurrection, denounced Gosar's remarks Tuesday evening.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, you heard that right: 21 of our colleagues across the aisle opposed a simple bill honoring the heroes of January 6; officers who now bear physical and psychological scars from that day because they fought to protect us in the Capitol. It is disgraceful. Yet, nothing about that from the other side of the aisle in terms of just how disgraceful that was. You can talk politics, but if you want to talk about the substance of these bills, then do so and acknowledge what they are. They are bills that will help make our community safer. They are bills that, quite frankly--I should also point out that I think all but one of the bills is the same as they were in July. I am not quite sure what the fuss over the fact that we are bringing these things up right now is all about. They are good bills that will help make our community safer. Look, I trust that we pass the rule. Some thoughtful Republicans will vote in favor of some of them or all of them. If you don't believe that this is an appropriate thing to do, then you can vote ``no.'' That is your right, and you can go home and explain it to your constituents. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, just for the record, because I think it is important to have an accurate record, the text of three of these bills has been available for over a month. Even the manager's amendment on the VICTIM Act of 2022, which the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings) has introduced has been available for almost a month. Again, the only one talking about politics is the gentlewoman from Minnesota, but I guess that is all they have. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of the VICTIM Act of 2022 from the National Association of Police Organizations, from the National Fraternal Order of Police, from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, from the National Police Foundation, all in support of the VICTIM Act. National Association of Police Organizations, Inc., Alexandria, VA, June 14, 2022. Hon. Jerrold Nadler, Chair, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Jordan: On behalf of the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), representing over 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers across the United States, I am writing to advise you of our support for the Violent Incident Clearance and Technological Investigative Methods (VICTIM) Act, H.R. 5768, and thank the Committee for considering this legislation. Our nation's cities and communities are experiencing a historic rise in violent crime. Murders and non-fatal shootings are going unresolved at higher rates as law enforcement agencies do not have the officers and resources to dedicate to improving clearance rates for these horrendous crimes. The VICTIM Act will help address this issue by supplying much needed grant funding to agencies to fill, replenish, train, and support their detective and homicide personnel. Through this legislation, law enforcement will be able to focus on solving these violent crimes that have such a detrimental impact on our communities and improve the services that they render to victims. We urge the Committee to join us in support of the VICTIM Act and we look forward to working with you to ensure law enforcement agencies have the support and resources necessary to serve and protect our communities. Sincerely, William J. Johnson, Esq., Executive Director.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I remind my Republican colleagues that just last month a number of them openly and unabashedly messaged around defunding and dismantling the FBI. Some even sold campaign merchandise with that tagline. Let that sink in, I would say to my colleagues. In any event, pass the rule. Let's have the debate on these bills. If you want to promote safer communities, then you will support them. If you want to just do politics as usual, then you will follow the lead of my colleague from Minnesota and vote against them. Madam Speaker, these are good bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would respectfully suggest to my colleague that they are supporting this legislation not because of politics, they are supporting it because they think it is actually good for our communities and will make our communities safer. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a Forbes article titled ``Trump Loyalists' Calls To Defund the FBI, and Other Hypocrisies.'' [From Forbes, Aug. 12, 2022] Trump Loyalists' Calls To Defund the FBI, and Other Hypocrisies (By Shaun Harper) Federal Bureau of Investigation agents executed a warrant to search former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida this week. They were reportedly looking for classified documents that weren't supposed to leave the White House during the presidential transition. Materials for which the FBI was looking apparently have national security implications. In a press conference yesterday, Attorney General Merrick Garland said he ``personally approved'' the search of Trump's home. Shockingly and ironically, many Trump loyalists are calling for the FBI to be defunded. Following the police-executed murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in 2020, Black Lives Matter activists and other Americans called for a defunding of police departments across the country. Trump, most of his supporters, and several others fiercely rejected this proposal. They praised law enforcement officers and advanced what became known as the ``Blue Lives Matter'' campaign. There was occasional acknowledgment that a small number of bad apples sometimes engage in bad behaviors. But systemic racism in policing? Absolutely not. Opponents of the defund the police movement loudly applauded the bravery, sacrifice, and integrity of law enforcement officers. Trump supporters who opposed defunding the police two years ago are now calling for the FBI, a law enforcement agency, to be defunded. Among them is Florida Republican congressional candidate Anthony Sabatini, who in a CNN interview deemed the FBI ``totally useless.'' He also wants FBI agents to be arrested. Garland, our nation's top cop, ``needs to be assassinated,'' one person who may (or may not) be a Trump supporter tweeted. This is just one of many social media posts this week calling for violence against the Attorney General and the FBI. Ricky Shiffer, an armed man who allegedly fired into an FBI office building with a nail gun and was armed with an AR-15-style rifle, was killed following a car chase and standoff with law enforcement officers in Cincinnati yesterday. Shiffer was allegedly part of pro-Trump extremist groups that attacked the U.S. Capitol last year. The hypocrisy over opposing defunding the police in 2020, but calling for the FBI to be defunded now, is clear--though not at all atypical. Trump loyalists have done versions of this before. ``Lock her up,'' they chanted, as 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was accused of storing classified information on private, unencrypted email servers in her home. Paradoxically, a version of this is why FBI agents searched Trump's Florida estate this week. The same group that reached determinations of Clinton's guilt before, during, and after the investigation of her swiftly determined that the FBI is wrong about Trump and should therefore be defunded. Another example are the ``My Body, My Choice'' posters that many Trump supporters carried during rallies held throughout the pandemic to oppose masking and vaccine mandates. That phrase had been long used in pro-choice demonstrations. Most Trump supporters aren't pro-choice, right? The opposition of President Barack Obama nominating Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court seat that became vacant eight months prior to the 2016 election is a third example of hypocrisy. Trump supporters and other GOP members successfully argued that an outgoing president shouldn't have the authority to nominate a new justice to the Court with so little time remaining in his tenure. Yet, many of those same politicians and other conservatives were fully on board with Trump nominating Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court just 38 days before the 2020 presidential election. And then there is the racialized double standard that played out in the January 6 Capitol Insurrection. On June 1, 2020, a group of mostly peaceful demonstrators gathered near the White House to protest George Floyd's murder. They killed no one and did no damage to the White House or any other federal building. But Trump still called in the National Guard to aggressively remove them from the streets. His supporters defended the president's decision. Just six months later, hundreds of angry Trump loyalists, most of them white, violently attacked the U.S. Capitol. Their actions resulted in five deaths and the injuries of 140 law enforcement officers. The inescapably obvious role that race played in the January 6 insurrection hasn't been talked about much, if at all, in the recent congressional hearings. Had Black Americans attacked the Capitol, I am certain that Trump supporters, as well as other conservatives and liberals alike, would have reached near-unanimous agreement on what happened that day and the necessary legal repercussions. I also remain convinced that most Black protestors would have been immediately killed had they scaled and otherwise violently entered any federal building, let alone the one in which Vice President Mike Pence and congresspersons were meeting at the time. Trump and his loyalists surely would've argued those Black insurrectionists deserved whatever law enforcement officers did to them that day, hence the hypocrisy.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for conceding that the text of three of the bills was available for a month. I am glad we could set the record straight on that. The second thing I will say is that at least two of these bills have bipartisan cosponsorship. The VICTIM Act has four Republican cosponsors. The Invest to Protect Act has 24 Republican cosponsors. Maybe they didn't get the memo that they are supposed to put politics ahead of people, but the bottom line is they are cosponsors of this. I would expect, unless their arms are twisted, that they will vote for the bills on final passage. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 101 human rights, civil rights, racial justice, religiously affiliated, and gun safety organizations who wrote in support of Congressman Horsford's bill, H.R. 4118, the Break the Cycle of Violence Act. I think that is worth noting. July 30, 2021. We the undersigned 101 human rights, civil rights, racial justice, religiously affiliated and gun safety organizations write in support of the Break the Cycle of Violence Act (S. 2275/H.R. 4118). We urge you to swiftly pass the Break the Cycle of Violence Act to provide at least $5 billion in federal funding over eight years for community gun violence prevention programs. Gun violence in the U.S. is a crisis, disproportionately impacting Black and Brown communities nationwide. Gun homicides are the leading cause of death among Black men ages 15-34 and the second-leading cause of death for Latino men and boys of the same age range. Black men are more than ten times as likely to be the victims of gun homicides than white men. In 2019, 14,414 people died from gun homicides in the U.S. Nearly 60 percent--8,607--of gun homicide deaths were Black people. Yet Black people represent just 14.7 percent of the U.S. population. With a surge in gun sales in the wake of COVID-19, shootings are increasing across the U.S., contributing to the crisis. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 39,707 deaths in 2019, the most recent year for which government data is available with 14,414 of those being gun homicides. The Gun Violence Archive, a non- profit organization that tracks and documents gun injuries and deaths, published data in May 2021 indicating that the number of deaths in 2020 had risen to a staggering 43,554 with 19,398 of those being gun homicides. Evidence-based, community violence prevention programs have been proven to reduce gun violence and save lives, while investing resources in impacted communities. There are three well-established models of gun violence prevention programs that have proven successful in reducing violence, some of which are referenced in both President Biden's executive actions and guidance and in the Break the Cycle of Violence Act. The Group Violence Intervention (``GVI'') strategy, a form of problem-oriented policing (as opposed to traditional ``incident-driven'' policing), was first used in the enormously successful Operation Ceasefire in Boston in the mid-1990s where it was associated with a 61 percent reduction in youth homicide. The program has now been implemented in a wide variety of cities with consistently impressive results. An analysis of more than 20 GVI programs showed a significant reduction in firearm violence. The most successful of these programs have reduced violent crime in cities by an average of 30 percent and improved relations between law enforcement officers and the neighborhoods they serve. The GVI model has a remarkably strong track record: a documented association with homicide reductions of 30 to 60 percent. A study of the Cure Violence model, first implemented in Chicago, found that its implementation in several targeted districts in Chicago was associated with a 38 percent greater decrease in homicides and a 15 percent greater decrease in shootings, compared to districts that did not receive the intervention. A 2018 evaluation of Philadelphia's Cure Violence Program found that shootings decreased significantly, compared to other matched comparison areas. An example of Hospital Based Violence Intervention, the third model of evidence-based violence prevention programs, is the San Francisco Wraparound Project, first introduced in 2005. In its first six years of operation the Wraparound Project was associated with a fourfold decrease in injury recidivism (re-injury from gun-shot wounds) rates. Moreover, studies have shown that this form of intervention saves hospitals money by preventing future injuries, both for the patient and for anyone the patient may have considered retaliating against. Investment, training, and support for culturally appropriate violence prevention workers with lived experience in impacted communities has proven successful in cities across the U.S., yet lack of political will has resulted in many advocates and community leaders working with limited or no resources. For example, Lamar Johnson of B.R.A.V.E. Chicago, said: ``Our after-school program is a non-profit- we run it through the church--and the funding comes mostly from private donors. The majority of the city's budget goes to law enforcement-- and that's not just Chicago, that's most cities. We've met with mayors' administrations so many times and presented our case, but they don't give us funding. The whole system is so broken, because the focus is on the criminal justice system. If someone is addicted to drugs, they go to jail before they go to the hospital to get treatment. It's the mindset.'' Recognizing the effectiveness of these programs and the heroic people like Lamar who lead them, President Biden, on March 31, 2021, announced his intention to include $5 billion for gun violence prevention programs in the American Jobs Plan. This builds on the efforts of Senator Booker and Representative Horsford to pass the Break the Cycle of Violence Act, first introduced in the 116th Congress. If passed, it would provide funding for federal grants to communities that experience 20 or more homicides per year and have a homicide rate at least twice the national average, or communities that demonstrate a unique and compelling need for additional resources to address gun and group-related violence. Each grant awarded would be renewable over five years, and funds would be commensurate with the scope of the proposal and the demonstrated need. While it is impossible to place a dollar amount on a person's life or the cost of that loss to their families, communities, and loved ones, the astronomical financial impact of gun violence on U.S. society cannot be overlooked. According to a 2020 study by physicians and researchers, gun violence costs the U.S. healthcare system $170 billion per year. The Health Alliance for Violence Intervention estimates it would cost an estimated $827 million per year, or $5.36 billion over eight years, to fund sustained and adequate violence intervention programs in the 48 U.S. cities with the highest rates of violence--hence the call on Congress to pass at least $5 billion over eight years for community gun violence prevention programs. With sustained investment into gun violence prevention programs and a national comprehensive strategy aimed at reducing gun violence, particularly in Black and Brown communities, Congress can make inroads to reducing gun violence in all communities and ensure the right of everyone to live free from the threat of gun violence. Congress has an obligation to take action to invest in communities ravaged by gun violence and to make efforts to prevent gun violence and protect the lives and safety of all individuals, particularly in the face of evidence that the 2020 gun-related injury and death tolls in the U.S. have been the highest in decades. We urge Congress to act urgently to pass the Break the Cycle of Violence Act to ensure at least $5 billion in federal funding over eight years for community gun violence prevention programs that save lives. Sincerely, Amnesty International USA, Community Justice Action Fund, ACLU, African American Ministers in Action, Ban Assault Weapons Now!, Brady, BRAVE Youth Leaders, Ceasefire Oregon, Ceasefire Pennsylvania, Center for American Progress, The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, CommonSpirit Health, Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes and the CSA-USA Associate Community Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace, CT Against Gun Violence. Dominican Sisters of Houston, Dominican Sisters--Grand Rapids, Dominican Sisters of Sinsinawa, Everytown for Gun Safety, First Unitarian Universalist Church of Houston, Franciscan Action Network, Franciscan Peace Center, Franciscan Sisters of the Sacred Heart, Generation Progress, Giffords, GPEC-ICHV, Grandmothers Against Gun Violence, Grey Nuns of the Sacred Heart, Gun Violence Prevention PAC Illinois, The Health Alliance for Violence Intervention, Holy Spirit Missionary Sisters, USA-JPIC. Honor with Action Coalition, Houston League of Business & Professional Women, IHM Sisters--Justice, Peace and Sustainability Office, Indivisible Northern Nevada, Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Intercommunity Peace and Justice Center, Iowans for Gun Safety, Jewish Women International, www.Journey4ward.org, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Leadership Team of the Felician Sisters of North America, March for Our Lives DC, Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action. NAACP, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Newtown Action Alliance, Newtown Junior Action Alliance, Nonviolence Institute of Rhode Island, North Carolina Council of Churches, North Carolinians Against Gun Violence, Northwest Coalition for Responsible Investment, Not My Generation, Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, People for a Safer Society, Presentation Sisters, San Francisco, CA, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, Region VI Coalition for Responsible Investment, Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary, Western American Area. Restorations Ministries, Inc., Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence, Sacred Ground Ministries, Saint Mark's Episcopal Capitol Hill DC, San Diegans for Gun Violence Prevention, Sandy Hook Promise, School Sisters of Notre Dame- Atlantic Midwest Office, School Sisters of Notre Dame, Central Pacific Province, Sisters of Bon Secours, USA, Sisters of Charity, BVM, Sisters of Charity Federation, Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Congregational Leadership, Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Western Province Leadership, Sisters of Charity of Saint Augustine, Sisters of Mercy of the American Justice Team. Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur USA, Sisters of St. Dominic of Blauvelt, New York, Sisters of St. Dominic Racine, WI, Sisters of St. Francis of Assisi, Sisters of St. Joseph of Boston, Sisters of Saint Joseph of Chestnut Hill, Philadelphia, PA, Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, LA, Sisters of St. Joseph of NW PA, Sisters of St. Mary of Namur, Sisters of the Holy Cross, Sisters of the Humility of Mary, Squirrel Hill Stands Against Gun Violence, Stop Handgun Violence, Students Demand Action, Survivors Lead. Team Enough, Trinity Health, Union of Sisters of the Presentation of BVM, USA Unit, United Church of Christ, Justice and Local Church Ministries, Ursuline Sisters of Cleveland, Ursuline Sisters of Louisville, KY, Ursuline Sisters of Mount Saint Joseph, Wheaton Franciscans JPIC Office, Youth Advocate Programs, Inc, Youth Over Guns.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, again I inserted earlier an article talking about the Republicans that would not even honor the men and women of the Capitol Police who defended us on January 6. I continue to believe that that was a disgraceful moment. But when the gentlewoman says that somehow they will always stand on behalf and honor members of law enforcement--let me just read a few quotations here. Representative Jeff Duncan from South Carolina: ``The FBI has proven time and again that it is corrupt to the core. At what point do we abolish the Bureau and start over?'' Representative Paul Gosar of Arizona says: ``I will support a complete dismantling and elimination of the Democrat brownshirts known as the FBI. This is too much for our Republic to withstand.'' Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado: ``The GOP majority must defund all forms of tyranny throughout Biden's government. @FBI.'' Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia: ``Impeach Merrick Garland and defund the corrupt FBI. End political persecution and hold those accountable that abuse their positions of power to persecute their political enemies, while ruining our country. This shouldn't happen in America. Republicans must force it to stop.'' On Marjorie Taylor Greene's website, she is selling defund the FBI T- shirts, so it is my friends on the other side of the aisle who want to defund law enforcement, who want to defund the police. There is an old saying: Physician, heal thyself. You ought to take that to heart. The bottom line here is that these are bills that will help improve safety in our communities. These are bills that local officials, local law enforcement organizations, want. The only people who don't want them are my friends on the other side of the aisle. If you want to vote no, vote no. But I suspect that some on the minority side understand what their communities want, and they don't want politics as usual. They don't want people putting politics over people. What they want is help for their communities. You have a chance. You can either vote yes to help the communities or vote no. That is your choice. Madam Speaker, I think these bills are good bills. We should support the rule. We should support the underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, my colleague from Minnesota said, if I am quoting it right, ``They expect us to believe they support our law enforcement.'' I will be honest with you. I don't expect my colleagues to believe anything, but I expect them to read the bills and to decide whether or not, if you pass these bills, they will help make our communities safer or not. The gentleman from Florida didn't like three of the bills, but he likes one of the bills. The beauty of this rule is you will be able to vote on all of them, and you can vote no on the ones you don't like, and you can vote yes on the ones that you do like. When we talk about how law enforcement has been under attack, I don't want to hear any lectures from my friends on the other side of the aisle. I went through a whole litany of Republican Members who were calling for defunding the FBI. My friends have a Member on the Republican side who actually is selling defund the FBI T-shirts on her web page. It says, ``Defund the FBI.'' It is defund the police. My colleagues don't seem to care much about that. I will go back to something else that I still can't get out of my mind, and that was the vote on awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to the United States Capitol Police officers who saved the lives of everybody who was here that day, and 21 Republican Members voted no. That is a disgrace. That has brought shame on this institution. So, don't lecture any of us about our support for law enforcement when 21 of the Members on the other side of the aisle voted no on a Congressional Gold Medal to honor the brave men and women who protected us in this Chamber on that day. Enough. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Guardian titled ``'Republicans are defunding the police: FOX News anchor stumps Congressman.'' [From the Guardian, June 28, 2021] Republicans Are Defunding the Police--Fox News Anchor Stumps Congressman (By Martin Pengelly) The Fox News anchor Chris Wallace made headlines of his own on Sunday, by pointing out to a senior Republican that he and the rest of his party recently voted against $350bn in funding for law enforcement. ``Can't you make the argument that it's you and the Republicans who are defunding the police?'' Wallace asked Jim Banks, the head of the House Republican study committee. The congressman was the author of a Fox News column in which he said Democrats were responsible for spikes in violent crime. ``There is overwhelming evidence,'' Banks wrote, ``connecting the rise in murders to the violent riots last summer''--a reference to protests over the murder of George Floyd which sometimes produced looting and violence--``and the defund the police movement. Both of which were supported, financially and rhetorically, by the Democratic party and the Biden administration.'' Joe Biden does not support any attempt to ``defund the police'', a slogan adopted by some on the left but which remains controversial and which the president has said Republicans have used to ``beat the living hell'' out of Democrats. On Fox News Sunday, Banks repeatedly attacked the so-called ``Squad'' of young progressive women in the House and said Democrats ``stigmatised'' law enforcement and helped criminals. ``Let me push back on that a little bit,'' Wallace said. ``Because [this week] the president said that the central part in his anti-crime package is the $350bn in the American Rescue Plan, the Covid relief plan that was passed.'' Covid relief passed through Congress in March, under rules that meant it did not require Republican votes. It did not get a single one. Asked if that meant it was ``you and the Republicans who are defunding the police'', Banks dodged the question. Wallace said: ``No, no, sir, respectfully--wait, sir, respectfully ... I'm asking you, there's $350bn in this package the president says can be used for policing . . . ``Congressman Banks, let me finish, and I promise I will give you a chance to answer. The president is saying cities and states can use this money to hire more police officers, invest in new technologies and develop summer job training and recreation programs for young people. Respectfully, I've heard your point about the last year, but you and every other Republican voted against this $350bn.'' Turning a blind eye to Wallace's question, Banks said: ``If we turn a blind eye to law and order, and a blind eye to riots that occurred in cities last summer, and we take police officers off the street, we're inevitably going to see crime rise.'' Wallace asked if Banks could support any gun control legislation. Banks said that if Biden was ``serious about reducing violent crime in America'', he should ``admonish the radical voices in the Democrat [sic] party that have stigmatised police officers and law enforcement''. Despite working for Republicans' favoured broadcaster, Wallace is happy to hold their feet to the fire, as grillings of Donald Trump and Kevin McCarthy have shown. He has also attracted criticism, for example for failing to control Trump during a chaotic presidential debate last year which one network rival called ``a hot mess, inside a dumpster fire, inside a train wreck''. Last year, Wallace told the Guardian: ``I do what I do and I'm sitting there during the week trying to come up with the best guests and the best show I possibly can and I'm not sitting there thinking about how do we fit in some media commentary. ``We're not there to try to one-up the president or any politician.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, if you look at the voting record of many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you will see few to none supported recent funding bills that also direct money toward supporting local law enforcement. If they think that we are on a crusade to defund the police, well, the last few years of funding the police say otherwise. Madam Speaker, I also include in the Record a Rolling Stone article titled `` `Back-The-Blue' Republicans Bail on Moment of Silence for Fallen Capitol Police Officers.'' [From Rolling Stone, Jan. 6, 2022] `Back-The-Blue' Republicans Bail on Moment of Silence for Fallen Capitol Police Officers (By Tim Dickinson) The Republican Party holds itself as the champions of law enforcement. They campaign on slogans of ``Back the Blue.'' They hold rallies flying the ``Thin Blue Line'' flag. They purport to celebrate the cops who shield the nation from violence and anarchy. But when it came time to show up in the halls of Congress for a remembrance of the sacrifices Capitol and Metropolitan Police made defending our democracy from violence last Jan. 6, Republicans lawmakers didn't bother to show up. Only one sitting Republican officeholder showed up, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney. She was accompanied by her father Dick, the former vice president. On that dark day one year ago, the ``Thin Blue Line'' was not a metaphor. Police put their bodies and lives in harm's way, attempting to blockade the joint session of Congress from the violent mob of Trump supporters who sought to stop the peaceful transfer of power after a lawful election. These cops were beaten, tased, tear gassed, dragged down steps, and crushed in doorways. More than 140 were injured in the insurrection, and five officer deaths (including subsequent suicides) have been linked to the violence and trauma of Jan. 6. ``I want to acknowledge our fallen heroes of that day,'' said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, leading a House session marking the anniversary of the attack. ``Now I ask all members to rise in a moment of silence in their memory.'' As the officials rose, the visual of a nearly empty GOP side of the aisle was chilling, as Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut noted on Twitter: At the moment of silence for the Capitol Police officers who died, there were only two Republicans who showed up. Rep. Lynn Cheney. And her father. The 80 year old former Vice President. An extraordinary image of where this country's politics are right now. --Chris Murphy January 6, 2022 Speaking to reporters at the Capitol, the former vice president said he attended the House session to mark ``an important historical event.'' Cheney elaborated that he was ``deeply disappointed we don't have better leadership in the Republican Party to restore the Constitution.'' The swipe at Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and House minority leader Kevin McCarthy--who could not be bothered to attend the remembrance, and who have done little to combat Trump's destructive and ongoing lies about the 2020 election--was unmistakable. Rep. Cheney's attendance was not surprising. She is the top Republican on the bipartisan congressional committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, and has been consistent and unabashed in her criticism of Donald Trump, blaming him directly for the violence at the Capitol. Cheney has been treated as a pariah by Trump--who has called her a ``bitter, horrible human being''--and was ousted from GOP House leadership earlier this year for refusing to kowtow to the Dear Leader. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, the other Republican on the Jan. 6 committee, is expecting the birth of a child and could not attend. ``Wish I could be there too, but I'm on baby watch,'' he tweeted. ``I am in spirit.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I find it hard to believe that someone says they back the police when they don't even do the bare minimum and show up and remember those who fought to save the lives of our very democracy and every single person in this Chamber that day. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.