[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 3, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H1039-H1071]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GEORGE FLOYD JUSTICE IN POLICING ACT OF 2021
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 179, I call up
the bill (H.R. 1280) to hold law enforcement accountable for misconduct
in court, improve transparency through data collection, and reform
police training and policies, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 179, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1280
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
Subtitle A--Holding Police Accountable in the Courts
Sec. 101. Deprivation of rights under color of law.
Sec. 102. Qualified immunity reform.
Sec. 103. Pattern and practice investigations.
Sec. 104. Independent investigations.
Subtitle B--Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act
Sec. 111. Short title.
Sec. 112. Definitions.
Sec. 113. Accreditation of law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 114. Law enforcement grants.
Sec. 115. Attorney General to conduct study.
Sec. 116. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 117. National task force on law enforcement oversight.
Sec. 118. Federal data collection on law enforcement practices.
TITLE II--POLICING TRANSPARENCY THROUGH DATA
Subtitle A--National Police Misconduct Registry
Sec. 201. Establishment of National Police Misconduct Registry.
Sec. 202. Certification requirements for hiring of law enforcement
officers.
Subtitle B--PRIDE Act
Sec. 221. Short title.
Sec. 222. Definitions.
Sec. 223. Use of force reporting.
Sec. 224. Use of force data reporting.
Sec. 225. Compliance with reporting requirements.
Sec. 226. Federal law enforcement reporting.
Sec. 227. Authorization of appropriations.
[[Page H1040]]
TITLE III--IMPROVING POLICE TRAINING AND POLICIES
Subtitle A--End Racial and Religious Profiling Act
Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Definitions.
Part I--Prohibition of Racial Profiling
Sec. 311. Prohibition.
Sec. 312. Enforcement.
Part II--Programs To Eliminate Racial Profiling By Federal Law
Enforcement Agencies
Sec. 321. Policies to eliminate racial profiling.
Part III--Programs To Eliminate Racial Profiling By State and Local Law
Enforcement Agencies
Sec. 331. Policies required for grants.
Sec. 332. Involvement of Attorney General.
Sec. 333. Data collection demonstration project.
Sec. 334. Development of best practices.
Sec. 335. Authorization of appropriations.
Part IV--Data Collection
Sec. 341. Attorney General to issue regulations.
Sec. 342. Publication of data.
Sec. 343. Limitations on publication of data.
Part V--Department of Justice Regulations and Reports on Racial
Profiling in the United States
Sec. 351. Attorney General to issue regulations and reports.
Subtitle B--Additional Reforms
Sec. 361. Training on racial bias and duty to intervene.
Sec. 362. Ban on no-knock warrants in drug cases.
Sec. 363. Incentivizing banning of chokeholds and carotid holds.
Sec. 364. PEACE Act.
Sec. 365. Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act.
Sec. 366. Public safety innovation grants.
Subtitle C--Law Enforcement Body Cameras
Part 1--Federal Police Camera and Accountability Act
Sec. 371. Short title.
Sec. 372. Requirements for Federal law enforcement officers regarding
the use of body cameras.
Sec. 373. Patrol vehicles with in-car video recording cameras.
Sec. 374. Facial recognition technology.
Sec. 375. GAO study.
Sec. 376. Regulations.
Sec. 377. Rule of construction.
Part 2--Police CAMERA Act
Sec. 381. Short title.
Sec. 382. Law enforcement body-worn camera requirements.
TITLE IV--CLOSING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONSENT LOOPHOLE
Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Prohibition on engaging in sexual acts while acting under
color of law.
Sec. 403. Enactment of laws penalizing engaging in sexual acts while
acting under color of law.
Sec. 404. Reports to Congress.
Sec. 405. Definition.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Severability.
Sec. 502. Savings clause.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Byrne grant program.--The term ``Byrne grant program''
means any grant program under subpart 1 of part E of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34
U.S.C. 10151 et seq.), without regard to whether the funds
are characterized as being made available under the Edward
Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Programs, the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants
Program, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Program, or otherwise.
(2) COPS grant program.--The term ``COPS grant program''
means the grant program authorized under section 1701 of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381).
(3) Federal law enforcement agency.--The term ``Federal law
enforcement agency'' means any agency of the United States
authorized to engage in or supervise the prevention,
detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of
Federal criminal law.
(4) Federal law enforcement officer.--The term ``Federal
law enforcement officer'' has the meaning given the term in
section 115 of title 18, United States Code.
(5) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the
meaning given the term ``Indian tribe'' in section 901 of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).
(6) Local law enforcement officer.--The term ``local law
enforcement officer'' means any officer, agent, or employee
of a State or unit of local government authorized by law or
by a government agency to engage in or supervise the
prevention, detection, or investigation of any violation of
criminal law.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given the
term in section 901 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).
(8) Tribal law enforcement officer.--The term ``tribal law
enforcement officer'' means any officer, agent, or employee
of an Indian tribe, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
authorized by law or by a government agency to engage in or
supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of any
violation of criminal law.
(9) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local
government'' has the meaning given the term in section 901 of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).
(10) Deadly force.--The term ``deadly force'' means that
force which a reasonable person would consider likely to
cause death or serious bodily harm, including--
(A) the discharge of a firearm;
(B) a maneuver that restricts blood or oxygen flow to the
brain, including chokeholds, strangleholds, neck restraints,
neckholds, and carotid artery restraints; and
(C) multiple discharges of an electronic control weapon.
(11) Use of force.--The term ``use of force'' includes--
(A) the use of a firearm, electronic control weapon,
explosive device, chemical agent (such as pepper spray),
baton, impact projectile, blunt instrument, hand, fist, foot,
canine, or vehicle against an individual;
(B) the use of a weapon, including a personal body weapon,
chemical agent, impact weapon, extended range impact weapon,
sonic weapon, sensory weapon, conducted energy device, or
firearm, against an individual; or
(C) any intentional pointing of a firearm at an individual.
(12) Less lethal force.--The term ``less lethal force''
means any degree of force that is not likely to cause death
or serious bodily injury.
(13) Facial recognition.--The term ``facial recognition''
means an automated or semiautomated process that analyzes
biometric data of an individual from video footage to
identify or assist in identifying an individual.
TITLE I--POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY
Subtitle A--Holding Police Accountable in the Courts
SEC. 101. DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``willfully'' and inserting ``knowingly or
recklessly'';
(2) by striking ``, or may be sentenced to death''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of
this section, an act shall be considered to have resulted in
death if the act was a substantial factor contributing to the
death of the person.''.
SEC. 102. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY REFORM.
Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States
(42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``It shall not be a defense or immunity in any
action brought under this section against a local law
enforcement officer (as such term is defined in section 2 of
the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021), or in any
action under any source of law against a Federal
investigative or law enforcement officer (as such term is
defined in section 2680(h) of title 28, United States Code),
that--
``(1) the defendant was acting in good faith, or that the
defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, that his or her
conduct was lawful at the time when the conduct was
committed; or
``(2) the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws were not clearly established at the
time of their deprivation by the defendant, or that at such
time, the state of the law was otherwise such that the
defendant could not reasonably have been expected to know
whether his or her conduct was lawful.''.
SEC. 103. PATTERN AND PRACTICE INVESTIGATIONS.
(a) Subpoena Authority.--Section 210401 of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C.
12601) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, by prosecutors,''
after ``conduct by law enforcement officers'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and
inserting ``subsection (a)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Subpoena Authority.--In carrying out the authority in
subsection (b), the Attorney General may require by subpoena
the production of all information, documents, reports,
answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data in any
medium (including electronically stored information), as well
as any tangible thing and documentary evidence, and the
attendance and testimony of witnesses necessary in the
performance of the Attorney General under subsection (b).
Such a subpoena, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey,
shall be enforceable by order of any appropriate district
court of the United States.
``(d) Civil Action by State Attorneys General.--Whenever it
shall appear to the attorney general of any State, or such
other official as a State may designate, that a violation of
subsection (a) has occurred within their State, the State
attorney general or official, in the name of the State, may
bring a civil action in the appropriate district court of the
United States to obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory
relief to eliminate the pattern or practice. In carrying out
the authority in this subsection, the State attorney general
or official shall have the same subpoena authority as is
available to the Attorney General under subsection (c).
[[Page H1041]]
``(e) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to limit the authority of the Attorney General
under subsection (b) in any case in which a State attorney
general has brought a civil action under subsection (d).
``(f) Reporting Requirements.--On the date that is one year
after the enactment of the George Floyd Justice in Policing
Act of 2021, and annually thereafter, the Civil Rights
Division of the Department of Justice shall make publicly
available on an internet website a report on, during the
previous year--
``(1) the number of preliminary investigations of
violations of subsection (a) that were commenced;
``(2) the number of preliminary investigations of
violations of subsection (a) that were resolved; and
``(3) the status of any pending investigations of
violations of subsection (a).''.
(b) Grant Program.--
(1) Grants authorized.--The Attorney General may award a
grant to a State to assist the State in conducting pattern
and practice investigations under section 210401(d) of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34
U.S.C. 12601).
(2) Application.--A State seeking a grant under paragraph
(1) shall submit an application in such form, at such time,
and containing such information as the Attorney General may
require.
(3) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated
$100,000,000 to the Attorney General for each of fiscal years
2022 through 2024 to carry out this subsection.
(c) Data on Excessive Use of Force.--Section 210402 of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34
U.S.C. 12602) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``The Attorney General'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Federal collection of data.--The Attorney General'';
and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) State collection of data.--The attorney general of a
State may, through appropriate means, acquire data about the
use of excessive force by law enforcement officers and such
data may be used by the attorney general in conducting
investigations under section 210401. This data may not
contain any information that may reveal the identity of the
victim or any law enforcement officer.''; and
(2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
``(b) Limitation on Use of Data Acquired by the Attorney
General.--Data acquired under subsection (a)(1) shall be used
only for research or statistical purposes and may not contain
any information that may reveal the identity of the victim or
any law enforcement officer.''.
(d) Enforcement of Pattern or Practice Relief.--Beginning
in the first fiscal year that begins after the date that is
one year after the date of enactment of this Act, a State or
unit of local government that receives funds under the Byrne
grant program or the COPS grant program during a fiscal year
may not make available any amount of such funds to a local
law enforcement agency if that local law enforcement agency
enters into or renews any contractual arrangement, including
a collective bargaining agreement with a labor organization,
that--
(1) would prevent the Attorney General from seeking or
enforcing equitable or declaratory relief against a law
enforcement agency engaging in a pattern or practice of
unconstitutional misconduct; or
(2) conflicts with any terms or conditions contained in a
consent decree.
SEC. 104. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Independent investigation.--The term ``independent
investigation'' means a criminal investigation or prosecution
of a law enforcement officer's use of deadly force, including
one or more of the following:
(i) Using an agency or civilian review board that
investigates and independently reviews all allegations of use
of deadly force made against law enforcement officers in the
jurisdiction.
(ii) Assigning of the attorney general of the State in
which the alleged use of deadly force was committed to
conduct the criminal investigation and prosecution.
(iii) Adopting a procedure under which an independent
prosecutor is assigned to investigate and prosecute the case,
including a procedure under which an automatic referral is
made to an independent prosecutor appointed and overseen by
the attorney general of the State in which the alleged use of
deadly force was committed.
(iv) Adopting a procedure under which an independent
prosecutor is assigned to investigate and prosecute the case.
(v) Having law enforcement agencies agree to and implement
memoranda of understanding with other law enforcement
agencies under which the other law enforcement agencies--
(I) shall conduct the criminal investigation into the
alleged use of deadly force; and
(II) upon conclusion of the criminal investigation, shall
file a report with the attorney general of the State
containing a determination regarding whether--
(aa) the use of deadly force was appropriate; and
(bb) any action should be taken by the attorney general of
the State.
(vi) Any substantially similar procedure to ensure
impartiality in the investigation or prosecution.
(B) Independent investigation of law enforcement statute.--
The term ``independent investigation of law enforcement
statute'' means a statute requiring an independent
investigation in a criminal matter in which--
(i) one or more of the possible defendants is a law
enforcement officer;
(ii) one or more of the alleged offenses involves the law
enforcement officer's use of deadly force in the course of
carrying out that officer's duty; and
(iii) the non-Federal law enforcement officer's use of
deadly force resulted in a death or injury.
(C) Independent prosecutor.--The term ``independent
prosecutor'' means, with respect to a criminal investigation
or prosecution of a law enforcement officer's use of deadly
force, a prosecutor who--
(i) does not oversee or regularly rely on the law
enforcement agency by which the law enforcement officer under
investigation is employed; and
(ii) would not be involved in the prosecution in the
ordinary course of that prosecutor's duties.
(2) Grant program.--The Attorney General may award grants
to eligible States and Indian Tribes to assist in
implementing an independent investigation of law enforcement
statute.
(3) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under this
subsection, a State or Indian Tribe shall have in effect an
independent investigation of law enforcement statute.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Attorney General $750,000,000 for
fiscal years 2022 through 2024 to carry out this subsection.
(b) COPS Grant Program Used for Civilian Review Boards.--
Part Q of title I of the of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in section 1701(b) (34 U.S.C. 10381(b))--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (22) and (23) as paragraphs
(23) and (24), respectively;
(B) in paragraph (23), as so redesignated, by striking
``(21)'' and inserting ``(22)''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (21) the following:
``(22) to develop best practices for and to create civilian
review boards;''; and
(2) in section 1709 (34 U.S.C. 10389), by adding at the end
the following:
``(8) `civilian review board' means an administrative
entity that investigates civilian complaints against law
enforcement officers and--
``(A) is independent and adequately funded;
``(B) has investigatory authority and subpoena power;
``(C) has representative community diversity;
``(D) has policy making authority;
``(E) provides advocates for civilian complainants;
``(F) may conduct hearings; and
``(G) conducts statistical studies on prevailing complaint
trends.''.
Subtitle B--Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act
SEC. 111. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Trust
and Integrity Act of 2021''.
SEC. 112. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Community-based organization.--The term ``community-
based organization'' means a grassroots organization that
monitors the issue of police misconduct and that has a local
or national presence and membership, such as the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), UnidosUS, the
National Urban League, the National Congress of American
Indians, or the National Asian Pacific American Legal
Consortium (NAPALC).
(2) Law enforcement accreditation organization.--The term
``law enforcement accreditation organization'' means a
professional law enforcement organization involved in the
development of standards of accreditation for law enforcement
agencies at the national, State, regional, or Tribal level,
such as the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies (CALEA).
(3) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement
agency'' means a State, local, Indian tribal, or campus
public agency engaged in the prevention, detection,
investigation, prosecution, or adjudication of violations of
criminal laws.
(4) Professional law enforcement association.--The term
``professional law enforcement association'' means a law
enforcement membership association that works for the needs
of Federal, State, local, or Indian tribal law enforcement
agencies and with the civilian community on matters of common
interest, such as the Hispanic American Police Command
Officers Association (HAPCOA), the National Asian Pacific
Officers Association (NAPOA), the National Black Police
Association (NBPA), the National Latino Peace Officers
Association (NLPOA), the National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), Women in Law Enforcement, the
Native American Law Enforcement Association (NALEA), the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the
National Sheriffs' Association (NSA), the Fraternal Order of
Police (FOP), or the National Association of School Resource
Officers.
[[Page H1042]]
(5) Professional civilian oversight organization.--The term
``professional civilian oversight organization'' means a
membership organization formed to address and advance
civilian oversight of law enforcement and whose members are
from Federal, State, regional, local, or Tribal organizations
that review issues or complaints against law enforcement
agencies or officers, such as the National Association for
Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE).
SEC. 113. ACCREDITATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
(a) Standards.--
(1) Initial analysis.--The Attorney General shall perform
an initial analysis of existing accreditation standards and
methodology developed by law enforcement accreditation
organizations nationwide, including national, State,
regional, and Tribal accreditation organizations. Such an
analysis shall include a review of the recommendations of the
Final Report of the President's Taskforce on 21st Century
Policing, issued by the Department of Justice, in May 2015.
(2) Development of uniform standards.--After completion of
the initial review and analysis under paragraph (1), the
Attorney General shall--
(A) recommend, in consultation with law enforcement
accreditation organizations and community-based
organizations, the adoption of additional standards that will
result in greater community accountability of law enforcement
agencies and an increased focus on policing with a guardian
mentality, including standards relating to--
(i) early warning systems and related intervention
programs;
(ii) use of force procedures;
(iii) civilian review procedures;
(iv) traffic and pedestrian stop and search procedures;
(v) data collection and transparency;
(vi) administrative due process requirements;
(vii) video monitoring technology;
(viii) youth justice and school safety; and
(ix) recruitment, hiring, and training; and
(B) recommend additional areas for the development of
national standards for the accreditation of law enforcement
agencies in consultation with existing law enforcement
accreditation organizations, professional law enforcement
associations, labor organizations, community-based
organizations, and professional civilian oversight
organizations.
(3) Continuing accreditation process.--The Attorney General
shall adopt policies and procedures to partner with law
enforcement accreditation organizations, professional law
enforcement associations, labor organizations, community-
based organizations, and professional civilian oversight
organizations to--
(A) continue the development of further accreditation
standards consistent with paragraph (2); and
(B) encourage the pursuit of accreditation of Federal,
State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies by
certified law enforcement accreditation organizations.
(b) Use of Funds Requirements.--Section 502(a) of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34
U.S.C. 10153(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(7) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by an
application, the applicant will use not less than 5 percent
of the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal year to
assist law enforcement agencies of the applicant, including
campus public safety departments, gain or maintain
accreditation from certified law enforcement accreditation
organizations in accordance with section 113 of the Law
Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2021.''.
(c) Eligibility for Certain Grant Funds.--The Attorney
General shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable
law, allocate Department of Justice discretionary grant
funding only to States or units of local government that
require law enforcement agencies of that State or unit of
local government to gain and maintain accreditation from
certified law enforcement accreditation organizations in
accordance with this section.
SEC. 114. LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS.
(a) Use of Funds Requirement.--Section 502(a) of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34
U.S.C. 10153(a)), as amended by section 113, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(8) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by an
application, the applicant will use not less than 5 percent
of the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal year to
study and implement effective management, training,
recruiting, hiring, and oversight standards and programs to
promote effective community and problem solving strategies
for law enforcement agencies in accordance with section 114
of the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2021.''.
(b) Grant Program for Community Organizations.--The
Attorney General may make grants to community-based
organizations to study and implement--
(1) effective management, training, recruiting, hiring, and
oversight standards and programs to promote effective
community and problem solving strategies for law enforcement
agencies; or
(2) effective strategies and solutions to public safety,
including strategies that do not rely on Federal and local
law enforcement agency responses.
(c) Use of Funds.--Grant amounts described in paragraph (8)
of section 502(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10153(a)), as added by
subsection (a) of this section, and grant amounts awarded
under subsection (b) shall be used to--
(1) study management and operations standards for law
enforcement agencies, including standards relating to
administrative due process, residency requirements,
compensation and benefits, use of force, racial profiling,
early warning and intervention systems, youth justice, school
safety, civilian review boards or analogous procedures, or
research into the effectiveness of existing programs,
projects, or other activities designed to address misconduct;
and
(2) develop pilot programs and implement effective
standards and programs in the areas of training, hiring and
recruitment, and oversight that are designed to improve
management and address misconduct by law enforcement
officers.
(d) Components of Pilot Program.--A pilot program developed
under subsection (c)(2) shall include implementation of the
following:
(1) Training.--The implementation of policies, practices,
and procedures addressing training and instruction to comply
with accreditation standards in the areas of--
(A) the use of deadly force, less lethal force, and de-
escalation tactics and techniques;
(B) investigation of officer misconduct and practices and
procedures for referring to prosecuting authorities
allegations of officer use of excessive force or racial
profiling;
(C) disproportionate contact by law enforcement with
minority communities;
(D) tactical and defensive strategy;
(E) arrests, searches, and restraint;
(F) professional verbal communications with civilians;
(G) interactions with--
(i) youth;
(ii) individuals with disabilities;
(iii) individuals with limited English proficiency; and
(iv) multi-cultural communities;
(H) proper traffic, pedestrian, and other enforcement
stops; and
(I) community relations and bias awareness.
(2) Recruitment, hiring, retention, and promotion of
diverse law enforcement officers.--Policies, procedures, and
practices for--
(A) the hiring and recruitment of diverse law enforcement
officers who are representative of the communities they
serve;
(B) the development of selection, promotion, educational,
background, and psychological standards that comport with
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et
seq.); and
(C) initiatives to encourage residency in the jurisdiction
served by the law enforcement agency and continuing
education.
(3) Oversight.--Complaint procedures, including the
establishment of civilian review boards or analogous
procedures for jurisdictions across a range of sizes and
agency configurations, complaint procedures by community-
based organizations, early warning systems and related
intervention programs, video monitoring technology, data
collection and transparency, and administrative due process
requirements inherent to complaint procedures for members of
the public and law enforcement.
(4) Youth justice and school safety.--Uniform standards on
youth justice and school safety that include best practices
for law enforcement interaction and communication with
children and youth, taking into consideration adolescent
development and any disability, including--
(A) the right to effective and timely notification of a
parent or legal guardian of any law enforcement interaction,
regardless of the immigration status of the individuals
involved; and
(B) the creation of positive school climates by improving
school conditions for learning by--
(i) eliminating school-based arrests and referrals to law
enforcement;
(ii) using evidence-based preventative measures and
alternatives to school-based arrests and referrals to law
enforcement, such as restorative justice and healing
practices; and
(iii) using school-wide positive behavioral interventions
and supports.
(5) Victim services.--Counseling services, including
psychological counseling, for individuals and communities
impacted by law enforcement misconduct.
(e) Technical Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may provide technical
assistance to States and community-based organizations in
furtherance of the purposes of this section.
(2) Models for reduction of law enforcement misconduct.--
The technical assistance provided by the Attorney General may
include the development of models for States and community-
based organizations to reduce law enforcement officer
misconduct. Any development of such models shall be in
consultation with community-based organizations.
(f) Use of Components.--The Attorney General may use any
component or components of the Department of Justice in
carrying out this section.
(g) Applications.--An application for a grant under
subsection (b) shall be submitted in such form, and contain
such information, as the Attorney General may prescribe by
rule.
(h) Performance Evaluation.--
[[Page H1043]]
(1) Monitoring components.--
(A) In general.--Each program, project, or activity funded
under this section shall contain a monitoring component,
which shall be developed pursuant to rules made by the
Attorney General.
(B) Requirement.--Each monitoring component required under
subparagraph (A) shall include systematic identification and
collection of data about activities, accomplishments, and
programs throughout the duration of the program, project, or
activity and presentation of such data in a usable form.
(2) Evaluation components.--
(A) In general.--Selected grant recipients shall be
evaluated on the local level or as part of a national
evaluation, pursuant to rules made by the Attorney General.
(B) Requirements.--An evaluation conducted under
subparagraph (A) may include independent audits of police
behavior and other assessments of individual program
implementations. For community-based organizations in
selected jurisdictions that are able to support outcome
evaluations, the effectiveness of funded programs, projects,
and activities may be required.
(3) Periodic review and reports.--The Attorney General may
require a grant recipient to submit biannually to the
Attorney General the results of the monitoring and
evaluations required under paragraphs (1) and (2) and such
other data and information as the Attorney General determines
to be necessary.
(i) Revocation or Suspension of Funding.--If the Attorney
General determines, as a result of monitoring under
subsection (h) or otherwise, that a grant recipient under the
Byrne grant program or under subsection (b) is not in
substantial compliance with the requirements of this section,
the Attorney General may revoke or suspend funding of that
grant, in whole or in part.
(j) Civilian Review Board Defined.--In this section, the
term ``civilian review board'' means an administrative entity
that investigates civilian complaints against law enforcement
officers and--
(1) is independent and adequately funded;
(2) has investigatory authority and subpoena power;
(3) has representative community diversity;
(4) has policy making authority;
(5) provides advocates for civilian complainants;
(6) may conduct hearings; and
(7) conducts statistical studies on prevailing complaint
trends.
(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Attorney General $25,000,000 for
fiscal year 2022 to carry out the grant program authorized
under subsection (b).
SEC. 115. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONDUCT STUDY.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall conduct a
nationwide study of the prevalence and effect of any law,
rule, or procedure that allows a law enforcement officer to
delay the response to questions posed by a local internal
affairs officer, or review board on the investigative
integrity and prosecution of law enforcement misconduct,
including pre-interview warnings and termination policies.
(2) Initial analysis.--The Attorney General shall perform
an initial analysis of existing State laws, rules, and
procedures to determine whether, at a threshold level, the
effect of the type of law, rule, or procedure that raises
material investigatory issues that could impair or hinder a
prompt and thorough investigation of possible misconduct,
including criminal conduct.
(3) Data collection.--After completion of the initial
analysis under paragraph (2), and considering material
investigatory issues, the Attorney General shall gather
additional data nationwide on similar laws, rules, and
procedures from a representative and statistically
significant sample of jurisdictions, to determine whether
such laws, rules, and procedures raise such material
investigatory issues.
(b) Reporting.--
(1) Initial analysis.--Not later than 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General
shall--
(A) submit to Congress a report containing the results of
the initial analysis conducted under subsection (a)(2);
(B) make the report submitted under subparagraph (A)
available to the public; and
(C) identify the jurisdictions for which the study
described in subsection (a)(3) is to be conducted.
(2) Data collected.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall
submit to Congress a report containing the results of the
data collected under this section and publish the report in
the Federal Register.
SEC. 116. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
2022, in addition to any other sums authorized to be
appropriated--
(1) $25,000,000 for additional expenses relating to the
enforcement of section 210401 of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12601), criminal
enforcement under sections 241 and 242 of title 18, United
States Code, and administrative enforcement by the Department
of Justice of such sections, including compliance with
consent decrees or judgments entered into under such section
210401; and
(2) $3,300,000 for additional expenses related to conflict
resolution by the Department of Justice's Community Relations
Service.
SEC. 117. NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OVERSIGHT.
(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Department of Justice a task force to be known as the Task
Force on Law Enforcement Oversight (hereinafter in this
section referred to as the ``Task Force'').
(b) Composition.--The Task Force shall be composed of
individuals appointed by the Attorney General, who shall
appoint not less than 1 individual from each of the
following:
(1) The Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights
Division.
(2) The Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division.
(3) The Federal Coordination and Compliance Section of the
Civil Rights Division.
(4) The Employment Litigation Section of the Civil Rights
Division.
(5) The Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights
Division.
(6) The Office of Justice Programs.
(7) The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS).
(8) The Corruption/Civil Rights Section of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
(9) The Community Relations Service.
(10) The Office of Tribal Justice.
(11) The unit within the Department of Justice assigned as
a liaison for civilian review boards.
(c) Powers and Duties.--The Task Force shall consult with
professional law enforcement associations, labor
organizations, and community-based organizations to
coordinate the process of the detection and referral of
complaints regarding incidents of alleged law enforcement
misconduct.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $5,000,000 for each fiscal year to carry
out this section.
SEC. 118. FEDERAL DATA COLLECTION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT
PRACTICES.
(a) Agencies To Report.--Each Federal, State, Tribal, and
local law enforcement agency shall report data of the
practices enumerated in subsection (c) of that agency to the
Attorney General.
(b) Breakdown of Information by Race, Ethnicity, and
Gender.--For each practice enumerated in subsection (c), the
reporting law enforcement agency shall provide a breakdown of
the numbers of incidents of that practice by race, ethnicity,
age, and gender of the officers of the agency and of members
of the public involved in the practice.
(c) Practices To Be Reported on.--The practices to be
reported on are the following:
(1) Traffic violation stops.
(2) Pedestrian stops.
(3) Frisk and body searches.
(4) Instances where law enforcement officers used deadly
force, including--
(A) a description of when and where deadly force was used,
and whether it resulted in death;
(B) a description of deadly force directed against an
officer and whether it resulted in injury or death; and
(C) the law enforcement agency's justification for use of
deadly force, if the agency determines it was justified.
(d) Retention of Data.--Each law enforcement agency
required to report data under this section shall maintain
records relating to any matter reported for not less than 4
years after those records are created.
(e) Penalty for States Failing To Report as Required.--
(1) In general.--For any fiscal year, a State shall not
receive any amount that would otherwise be allocated to that
State under section 505(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10156(a)), or
any amount from any other law enforcement assistance program
of the Department of Justice, unless the State has ensured,
to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, that the State
and each local law enforcement agency of the State is in
substantial compliance with the requirements of this section.
(2) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated by reason of this
subsection shall be reallocated to States not disqualified by
failure to comply with this section.
(f) Regulations.--The Attorney General shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this section.
TITLE II--POLICING TRANSPARENCY THROUGH DATA
Subtitle A--National Police Misconduct Registry
SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL POLICE MISCONDUCT
REGISTRY.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall establish a
National Police Misconduct Registry to be compiled and
maintained by the Department of Justice.
(b) Contents of Registry.--The Registry required to be
established under subsection (a) shall contain the following
data with respect to all Federal and local law enforcement
officers:
(1) Each complaint filed against a law enforcement officer,
aggregated by--
(A) complaints that were found to be credible or that
resulted in disciplinary action against the law enforcement
officer, disaggregated by whether the complaint involved a
use of force or racial profiling (as such term is defined in
section 302);
(B) complaints that are pending review, disaggregated by
whether the complaint involved a use of force or racial
profiling; and
[[Page H1044]]
(C) complaints for which the law enforcement officer was
exonerated or that were determined to be unfounded or not
sustained, disaggregated by whether the complaint involved a
use of force or racial profiling.
(2) Discipline records, disaggregated by whether the
complaint involved a use of force or racial profiling.
(3) Termination records, the reason for each termination,
disaggregated by whether the complaint involved a use of
force or racial profiling.
(4) Records of certification in accordance with section
202.
(5) Records of lawsuits against law enforcement officers
and settlements of such lawsuits.
(6) Instances where a law enforcement officer resigns or
retires while under active investigation related to the use
of force.
(c) Federal Agency Reporting Requirements.--Not later than
1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 6
months thereafter, the head of each Federal law enforcement
agency shall submit to the Attorney General the information
described in subsection (b).
(d) State and Local Law Enforcement Agency Reporting
Requirements.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that begins
after the date that is one year after the date of enactment
of this Act and each fiscal year thereafter in which a State
receives funds under the Byrne grant program, the State
shall, once every 180 days, submit to the Attorney General
the information described in subsection (b) for the State and
each local law enforcement agency within the State.
(e) Public Availability of Registry.--
(1) In general.--In establishing the Registry required
under subsection (a), the Attorney General shall make the
Registry available to the public on an internet website of
the Attorney General in a manner that allows members of the
public to search for an individual law enforcement officer's
records of misconduct, as described in subsection (b),
involving a use of force or racial profiling.
(2) Privacy protections.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to supersede the requirements or limitations
under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Privacy Act of 1974'').
SEC. 202. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HIRING OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
(a) In General.-- Beginning in the first fiscal year that
begins after the date that is one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, a State or unit of local government,
other than an Indian Tribe, may not receive funds under the
Byrne grant program for that fiscal year if, on the day
before the first day of the fiscal year, the State or unit of
local government has not--
(1) submitted to the Attorney General evidence that the
State or unit of local government has a certification and
decertification program for purposes of employment as a law
enforcement officer in that State or unit of local government
that is consistent with the rules made under subsection (c);
and
(2) submitted to the National Police Misconduct Registry
established under section 201 records demonstrating that all
law enforcement officers of the State or unit of local
government have completed all State certification
requirements during the 1-year period preceding the fiscal
year.
(b) Availability of Information.--The Attorney General
shall make available to law enforcement agencies all
information in the registry under section 201 for purposes of
compliance with the certification and decertification
programs described in subsection (a)(1) and considering
applications for employment.
(c) Rules.--The Attorney General shall make rules to carry
out this section and section 201, including uniform reporting
standards.
Subtitle B--PRIDE Act
SEC. 221. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Police Reporting
Information, Data, and Evidence Act of 2021'' or the ``PRIDE
Act of 2021''.
SEC. 222. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 8101 of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
7801).
(2) Local law enforcement officer.--The term ``local law
enforcement officer'' has the meaning given the term in
section 2, and includes a school resource officer.
(3) School.--The term ``school'' means an elementary school
or secondary school (as those terms are defined in section
8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 7801)).
(4) School resource officer.--The term ``school resource
officer'' means a sworn law enforcement officer who is--
(A) assigned by the employing law enforcement agency to a
local educational agency or school;
(B) contracting with a local educational agency or school;
or
(C) employed by a local educational agency or school.
SEC. 223. USE OF FORCE REPORTING.
(a) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that
begins after the date that is one year after the date of
enactment of this Act and each fiscal year thereafter in
which a State or Indian Tribe receives funds under a Byrne
grant program, the State or Indian Tribe shall--
(A) report to the Attorney General, on a quarterly basis
and pursuant to guidelines established by the Attorney
General, information regarding--
(i) any incident involving the use of deadly force against
a civilian by--
(I) a local law enforcement officer who is employed by the
State or by a unit of local government in the State; or
(II) a tribal law enforcement officer who is employed by
the Indian Tribe;
(ii) any incident involving the shooting of a local law
enforcement officer or tribal law enforcement officer
described in clause (i) by a civilian;
(iii) any incident involving the death or arrest of a local
law enforcement officer or tribal law enforcement officer;
(iv) any incident during which use of force by or against a
local law enforcement officer or tribal law enforcement
officer described in clause (i) occurs, which is not reported
under clause (i), (ii), or (iii);
(v) deaths in custody; and
(vi) uses of force in arrests and booking;
(B) establish a system and a set of policies to ensure that
all use of force incidents are reported by local law
enforcement officers or tribal law enforcement officers; and
(C) submit to the Attorney General a plan for the
collection of data required to be reported under this
section, including any modifications to a previously
submitted data collection plan.
(2) Report information required.--
(A) In general.--The report required under paragraph (1)(A)
shall contain information that includes, at a minimum--
(i) the national origin, sex, race, ethnicity, age,
disability, English language proficiency, and housing status
of each civilian against whom a local law enforcement officer
or tribal law enforcement officer used force;
(ii) the date, time, and location, including whether it was
on school grounds, and the zip code, of the incident and
whether the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred
allows for the open-carry or concealed-carry of a firearm;
(iii) whether the civilian was armed, and, if so, the type
of weapon the civilian had;
(iv) the type of force used against the officer, the
civilian, or both, including the types of weapons used;
(v) the reason force was used;
(vi) a description of any injuries sustained as a result of
the incident;
(vii) the number of officers involved in the incident;
(viii) the number of civilians involved in the incident;
and
(ix) a brief description regarding the circumstances
surrounding the incident, which shall include information
on--
(I) the type of force used by all involved persons;
(II) the legitimate police objective necessitating the use
of force;
(III) the resistance encountered by each local law
enforcement officer or tribal law enforcement officer
involved in the incident;
(IV) the efforts by local law enforcement officers or
tribal law enforcement officers to--
(aa) de-escalate the situation in order to avoid the use of
force; or
(bb) minimize the level of force used; and
(V) if applicable, the reason why efforts described in
subclause (IV) were not attempted.
(B) Incidents reported under death in custody reporting
act.--A State or Indian Tribe is not required to include in a
report under subsection (a)(1) an incident reported by the
State or Indian Tribe in accordance with section 20104(a)(2)
of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(34 U.S.C. 12104(a)(2)).
(C) Retention of data.--Each law enforcement agency
required to report data under this section shall maintain
records relating to any matter so reportable for not less
than 4 years after those records are created.
(3) Audit of use-of-force reporting.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year
thereafter, each State or Indian Tribe described in paragraph
(1) shall--
(A) conduct an audit of the use of force incident reporting
system required to be established under paragraph (1)(B); and
(B) submit a report to the Attorney General on the audit
conducted under subparagraph (A).
(4) Compliance procedure.--Prior to submitting a report
under paragraph (1)(A), the State or Indian Tribe submitting
such report shall compare the information compiled to be
reported pursuant to clause (i) of paragraph (1)(A) to
publicly available sources, and shall revise such report to
include any incident determined to be missing from the report
based on such comparison. Failure to comply with the
procedures described in the previous sentence shall be
considered a failure to comply with the requirements of this
section.
(b) Ineligibility for Funds.--
(1) In general.--For any fiscal year in which a State or
Indian Tribe fails to comply with this section, the State or
Indian Tribe, at the discretion of the Attorney General,
shall be subject to not more than a 10-percent reduction of
the funds that would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal
year to the State or Indian Tribe under a Byrne grant
program.
(2) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated under a Byrne
grant program in accordance with paragraph (1) to a State for
failure to comply with this section shall be reallocated
under the Byrne grant program to States
[[Page H1045]]
that have not failed to comply with this section.
(3) Information regarding school resource officers.--The
State or Indian Tribe shall ensure that all schools and local
educational agencies within the jurisdiction of the State or
Indian Tribe provide the State or Indian Tribe with the
information needed regarding school resource officers to
comply with this section.
(c) Public Availability of Data.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney
General shall publish, and make available to the public, a
report containing the data reported to the Attorney General
under this section.
(2) Privacy protections.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to supersede the requirements or limitations
under section 552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Privacy Act of 1974'').
(d) Guidance.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in coordination
with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
shall issue guidance on best practices relating to
establishing standard data collection systems that capture
the information required to be reported under subsection
(a)(2), which shall include standard and consistent
definitions for terms.
SEC. 224. USE OF FORCE DATA REPORTING.
(a) Technical Assistance Grants Authorized.--The Attorney
General may make grants to eligible law enforcement agencies
to be used for the activities described in subsection (c).
(b) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible to receive a
grant under this section a law enforcement agency shall--
(1) be a tribal law enforcement agency or be located in a
State that receives funds under a Byrne grant program;
(2) employ not more that 100 local or tribal law
enforcement officers;
(3) demonstrate that the use of force policy for local law
enforcement officers or tribal law enforcement officers
employed by the law enforcement agency is publicly available;
and
(4) establish and maintain a complaint system that--
(A) may be used by members of the public to report
incidents of use of force to the law enforcement agency;
(B) makes all information collected publicly searchable and
available; and
(C) provides information on the status of an investigation
related to a use of force complaint.
(c) Activities Described.--A grant made under this section
may be used by a law enforcement agency for--
(1) the cost of assisting the State or Indian Tribe in
which the law enforcement agency is located in complying with
the reporting requirements described in section 223;
(2) the cost of establishing necessary systems required to
investigate and report incidents as required under subsection
(b)(4);
(3) public awareness campaigns designed to gain information
from the public on use of force by or against local and
tribal law enforcement officers, including shootings, which
may include tip lines, hotlines, and public service
announcements; and
(4) use of force training for law enforcement agencies and
personnel, including training on de-escalation, implicit
bias, crisis intervention techniques, and adolescent
development.
SEC. 225. COMPLIANCE WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the Attorney
General shall conduct an audit and review of the information
provided under this subtitle to determine whether each State
or Indian Tribe described in section 223(a)(1) is in
compliance with the requirements of this subtitle.
(b) Consistency in Data Reporting.--
(1) In general.--Any data reported under this subtitle
shall be collected and reported--
(A) in a manner consistent with existing programs of the
Department of Justice that collect data on local law
enforcement officer encounters with civilians; and
(B) in a manner consistent with civil rights laws for
distribution of information to the public.
(2) Guidelines.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall--
(A) issue guidelines on the reporting requirement under
section 223; and
(B) seek public comment before finalizing the guidelines
required under subparagraph (A).
SEC. 226. FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT REPORTING.
The head of each Federal law enforcement agency shall
submit to the Attorney General, on a quarterly basis and
pursuant to guidelines established by the Attorney General,
the information required to be reported by a State or Indian
Tribe under section 223.
SEC. 227. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney
General such sums as are necessary to carry out this
subtitle.
TITLE III--IMPROVING POLICE TRAINING AND POLICIES
Subtitle A--End Racial and Religious Profiling Act
SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``End Racial and
Religious Profiling Act of 2021'' or ``ERRPA''.
SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Covered program.--The term ``covered program'' means
any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds
made available under--
(A) a Byrne grant program; and
(B) the COPS grant program, except that no program,
project, or other activity specified in section 1701(b)(13)
of part Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381 et seq.) shall be a
covered program under this paragraph.
(2) Governmental body.--The term ``governmental body''
means any department, agency, special purpose district, or
other instrumentality of Federal, State, local, or Indian
Tribal government.
(3) Hit rate.--The term ``hit rate'' means the percentage
of stops and searches in which a law enforcement agent finds
drugs, a gun, or something else that leads to an arrest. The
hit rate is calculated by dividing the total number of
searches by the number of searches that yield contraband. The
hit rate is complementary to the rate of false stops.
(4) Law enforcement agency.--The term ``law enforcement
agency'' means any Federal, State, or local public agency
engaged in the prevention, detection, or investigation of
violations of criminal, immigration, or customs laws.
(5) Law enforcement agent.--The term ``law enforcement
agent'' means any Federal, State, or local official
responsible for enforcing criminal, immigration, or customs
laws, including police officers and other agents of a law
enforcement agency.
(6) Racial profiling.--
(A) In general.--The term ``racial profiling'' means the
practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to any
degree, on actual or perceived race, ethnicity, national
origin, religion, gender, gender identity, or sexual
orientation in selecting which individual to subject to
routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in
deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement
activity following the initial investigatory procedure,
except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the
locality and timeframe, that links a person with a particular
characteristic described in this paragraph to an identified
criminal incident or scheme.
(B) Exception.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a tribal
law enforcement officer exercising law enforcement authority
within Indian country, as that term is defined in section
1151 of title 18, United States Code, is not considered to be
racial profiling with respect to making key jurisdictional
determinations that are necessarily tied to reliance on
actual or perceived race, ethnicity, or tribal affiliation.
(7) Routine or spontaneous investigatory activities.--The
term ``routine or spontaneous investigatory activities''
means the following activities by a law enforcement agent:
(A) Interviews.
(B) Traffic stops.
(C) Pedestrian stops.
(D) Frisks and other types of body searches.
(E) Consensual or nonconsensual searches of the persons,
property, or possessions (including vehicles) of individuals
using any form of public or private transportation, including
motorists and pedestrians.
(F) Data collection and analysis, assessments, and
predicated investigations.
(G) Inspections and interviews of entrants into the United
States that are more extensive than those customarily carried
out.
(H) Immigration-related workplace investigations.
(I) Such other types of law enforcement encounters compiled
for or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the
Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics.
(8) Reasonable request.--The term ``reasonable request''
means all requests for information, except for those that--
(A) are immaterial to the investigation;
(B) would result in the unnecessary disclosure of personal
information; or
(C) would place a severe burden on the resources of the law
enforcement agency given its size.
PART I--PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING
SEC. 311. PROHIBITION.
No law enforcement agent or law enforcement agency shall
engage in racial profiling.
SEC. 312. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Remedy.--The United States, or an individual injured by
racial profiling, may enforce this part in a civil action for
declaratory or injunctive relief, filed either in a State
court of general jurisdiction or in a district court of the
United States.
(b) Parties.--In any action brought under this part, relief
may be obtained against--
(1) any governmental body that employed any law enforcement
agent who engaged in racial profiling;
(2) any agent of such body who engaged in racial profiling;
and
(3) any person with supervisory authority over such agent.
(c) Nature of Proof.--Proof that the routine or spontaneous
investigatory activities of law enforcement agents in a
jurisdiction have had a disparate impact on individuals with
a particular characteristic described in section 302(6) shall
constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of this part.
[[Page H1046]]
(d) Attorney's Fees.--In any action or proceeding to
enforce this part against any governmental body, the court
may allow a prevailing plaintiff, other than the United
States, reasonable attorney's fees as part of the costs, and
may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee. The
term ``prevailing plaintiff'' means a plaintiff that
substantially prevails pursuant to a judicial or
administrative judgment or order, or an enforceable written
agreement.
PART II--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY FEDERAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SEC. 321. POLICIES TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING.
(a) In General.--Federal law enforcement agencies shall--
(1) maintain adequate policies and procedures designed to
eliminate racial profiling; and
(2) cease existing practices that permit racial profiling.
(b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in
subsection (a)(1) shall include--
(1) a prohibition on racial profiling;
(2) training on racial profiling issues as part of Federal
law enforcement training;
(3) the collection of data in accordance with the
regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 341;
(4) procedures for receiving, investigating, and responding
meaningfully to complaints alleging racial profiling by law
enforcement agents; and
(5) any other policies and procedures the Attorney General
determines to be necessary to eliminate racial profiling by
Federal law enforcement agencies.
PART III--PROGRAMS TO ELIMINATE RACIAL PROFILING BY STATE AND LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
SEC. 331. POLICIES REQUIRED FOR GRANTS.
(a) In General.--An application by a State or a unit of
local government for funding under a covered program shall
include a certification that such State, unit of local
government, and any law enforcement agency to which it will
distribute funds--
(1) maintains adequate policies and procedures designed to
eliminate racial profiling; and
(2) has eliminated any existing practices that permit or
encourage racial profiling.
(b) Policies.--The policies and procedures described in
subsection (a)(1) shall include--
(1) a prohibition on racial profiling;
(2) training on racial profiling issues as part of law
enforcement training;
(3) the collection of data in accordance with the
regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 341;
and
(4) participation in an administrative complaint procedure
or independent audit program that meets the requirements of
section 332.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 12
months after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 332. INVOLVEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.
(a) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act and in consultation with stakeholders,
including Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies
and community, professional, research, and civil rights
organizations, the Attorney General shall issue regulations
for the operation of administrative complaint procedures and
independent audit programs to ensure that such procedures and
programs provide an appropriate response to allegations of
racial profiling by law enforcement agents or agencies.
(2) Guidelines.--The regulations issued under paragraph (1)
shall contain guidelines that ensure the fairness,
effectiveness, and independence of the administrative
complaint procedures and independent auditor programs.
(b) Noncompliance.--If the Attorney General determines that
the recipient of a grant from any covered program is not in
compliance with the requirements of section 331 or the
regulations issued under subsection (a), the Attorney General
shall withhold, in whole or in part (at the discretion of the
Attorney General), funds for one or more grants to the
recipient under the covered program, until the recipient
establishes compliance.
(c) Private Parties.--The Attorney General shall provide
notice and an opportunity for private parties to present
evidence to the Attorney General that a recipient of a grant
from any covered program is not in compliance with the
requirements of this part.
SEC. 333. DATA COLLECTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
(a) Technical Assistance Grants for Data Collection.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may, through
competitive grants or contracts, carry out a 2-year
demonstration project for the purpose of developing and
implementing data collection programs on the hit rates for
stops and searches by law enforcement agencies. The data
collected shall be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national
origin, gender, and religion.
(2) Number of grants.--The Attorney General shall provide
not more than 5 grants or contracts under this section.
(3) Eligible grantees.--Grants or contracts under this
section shall be awarded to law enforcement agencies that
serve communities where there is a significant concentration
of racial or ethnic minorities and that are not already
collecting data voluntarily.
(b) Required Activities.--Activities carried out with a
grant under this section shall include--
(1) developing a data collection tool and reporting the
compiled data to the Attorney General; and
(2) training of law enforcement personnel on data
collection, particularly for data collection on hit rates for
stops and searches.
(c) Evaluation.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall enter into
a contract with an institution of higher education (as
defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001)) to analyze the data collected by each of
the grantees funded under this section.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out activities under this
section--
(1) $5,000,000, over a 2-year period, to carry out the
demonstration program under subsection (a); and
(2) $500,000 to carry out the evaluation under subsection
(c).
SEC. 334. DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES.
(a) Use of Funds Requirement.--Section 502(a) of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34
U.S.C. 10153(a)), as amended by sections 113 and 114, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(9) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by an
application, the applicant will use not less than 10 percent
of the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal year to
develop and implement best practice devices and systems to
eliminate racial profiling in accordance with section 334 of
the End Racial and Religious Profiling Act of 2021.''.
(b) Development of Best Practices.--Grant amounts described
in paragraph (9) of section 502(a) of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C.
10153(a)), as added by subsection (a) of this section, shall
be for programs that include the following:
(1) The development and implementation of training to
prevent racial profiling and to encourage more respectful
interaction with the public.
(2) The acquisition and use of technology to facilitate the
accurate collection and analysis of data.
(3) The development and acquisition of feedback systems and
technologies that identify law enforcement agents or units of
agents engaged in, or at risk of engaging in, racial
profiling or other misconduct.
(4) The establishment and maintenance of an administrative
complaint procedure or independent auditor program.
SEC. 335. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney
General such sums as are necessary to carry out this part.
PART IV--DATA COLLECTION
SEC. 341. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REGULATIONS.
(a) Regulations.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation
with stakeholders, including Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies and community, professional, research,
and civil rights organizations, shall issue regulations for
the collection and compilation of data under sections 321 and
331.
(b) Requirements.--The regulations issued under subsection
(a) shall--
(1) provide for the collection of data on all routine and
spontaneous investigatory activities;
(2) provide that the data collected shall--
(A) be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national origin,
gender, disability, and religion;
(B) include the date, time, and location of such
investigatory activities;
(C) include detail sufficient to permit an analysis of
whether a law enforcement agency is engaging in racial
profiling; and
(D) not include personally identifiable information;
(3) provide that a standardized form shall be made
available to law enforcement agencies for the submission of
collected data to the Department of Justice;
(4) provide that law enforcement agencies shall compile
data on the standardized form made available under paragraph
(3), and submit the form to the Civil Rights Division and the
Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics;
(5) provide that law enforcement agencies shall maintain
all data collected under this subtitle for not less than 4
years;
(6) include guidelines for setting comparative benchmarks,
consistent with best practices, against which collected data
shall be measured;
(7) provide that the Department of Justice Bureau of
Justice Statistics shall--
(A) analyze the data for any statistically significant
disparities, including--
(i) disparities in the percentage of drivers or pedestrians
stopped relative to the proportion of the population passing
through the neighborhood;
(ii) disparities in the hit rate; and
(iii) disparities in the frequency of searches performed on
racial or ethnic minority drivers and the frequency of
searches performed on nonminority drivers; and
(B) not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of
this Act, and annually thereafter--
(i) prepare a report regarding the findings of the analysis
conducted under subparagraph (A);
[[Page H1047]]
(ii) provide such report to Congress; and
(iii) make such report available to the public, including
on a website of the Department of Justice, and in accordance
with accessibility standards under the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.); and
(8) protect the privacy of individuals whose data is
collected by--
(A) limiting the use of the data collected under this
subtitle to the purposes set forth in this subtitle;
(B) except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, limiting
access to the data collected under this subtitle to those
Federal, State, or local employees or agents who require such
access in order to fulfill the purposes for the data set
forth in this subtitle;
(C) requiring contractors or other nongovernmental agents
who are permitted access to the data collected under this
subtitle to sign use agreements incorporating the use and
disclosure restrictions set forth in subparagraph (A); and
(D) requiring the maintenance of adequate security measures
to prevent unauthorized access to the data collected under
this subtitle.
SEC. 342. PUBLICATION OF DATA.
The Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the
Department of Justice shall provide to Congress and make
available to the public, together with each annual report
described in section 341, the data collected pursuant to this
subtitle, excluding any personally identifiable information
described in section 343.
SEC. 343. LIMITATIONS ON PUBLICATION OF DATA.
The name or identifying information of a law enforcement
agent, complainant, or any other individual involved in any
activity for which data is collected and compiled under this
subtitle shall not be--
(1) released to the public;
(2) disclosed to any person, except for--
(A) such disclosures as are necessary to comply with this
subtitle;
(B) disclosures of information regarding a particular
person to that person; or
(C) disclosures pursuant to litigation; or
(3) subject to disclosure under section 552 of title 5,
United States Code (commonly known as the Freedom of
Information Act), except for disclosures of information
regarding a particular person to that person.
PART V--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS ON RACIAL
PROFILING IN THE UNITED STATES
SEC. 351. ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ISSUE REGULATIONS AND REPORTS.
(a) Regulations.--In addition to the regulations required
under sections 333 and 341, the Attorney General shall issue
such other regulations as the Attorney General determines are
necessary to implement this subtitle.
(b) Reports.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Attorney
General shall submit to Congress a report on racial profiling
by law enforcement agencies.
(2) Scope.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) a summary of data collected under sections 321(b)(3)
and 331(b)(3) and from any other reliable source of
information regarding racial profiling in the United States;
(B) a discussion of the findings in the most recent report
prepared by the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice
Statistics under section 341(b)(7);
(C) the status of the adoption and implementation of
policies and procedures by Federal law enforcement agencies
under section 321 and by the State and local law enforcement
agencies under sections 331 and 332; and
(D) a description of any other policies and procedures that
the Attorney General believes would facilitate the
elimination of racial profiling.
Subtitle B--Additional Reforms
SEC. 361. TRAINING ON RACIAL BIAS AND DUTY TO INTERVENE.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish--
(1) a training program for law enforcement officers to
cover racial profiling, implicit bias, and procedural
justice; and
(2) a clear duty for Federal law enforcement officers to
intervene in cases where another law enforcement officer is
using excessive force against a civilian, and establish a
training program that covers the duty to intervene.
(b) Mandatory Training for Federal Law Enforcement
Officers.--The head of each Federal law enforcement agency
shall require each Federal law enforcement officer employed
by the agency to complete the training programs established
under subsection (a).
(c) Limitation on Eligibility for Funds.--Beginning in the
first fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year
after the date of enactment of this Act, a State or unit of
local government may not receive funds under the Byrne grant
program for a fiscal year if, on the day before the first day
of the fiscal year, the State or unit of local government
does not require each law enforcement officer in the State or
unit of local government to complete the training programs
established under subsection (a).
(d) Grants To Train Law Enforcement Officers on Use of
Force.--Section 501(a)(1) of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10152(a)(1))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(I) Training programs for law enforcement officers,
including training programs on use of force and a duty to
intervene.''.
SEC. 362. BAN ON NO-KNOCK WARRANTS IN DRUG CASES.
(a) Ban on Federal Warrants in Drug Cases.--Section 509 of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 879) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``A search warrant
authorized under this section shall require that a law
enforcement officer execute the search warrant only after
providing notice of his or her authority and purpose.''.
(b) Limitation on Eligibility for Funds.--Beginning in the
first fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year
after the date of enactment of this Act, a State or unit of
local government may not receive funds under the COPS grant
program for a fiscal year if, on the day before the first day
of the fiscal year, the State or unit of local government
does not have in effect a law that prohibits the issuance of
a no-knock warrant in a drug case.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``no-knock
warrant'' means a warrant that allows a law enforcement
officer to enter a property without requiring the law
enforcement officer to announce the presence of the law
enforcement officer or the intention of the law enforcement
officer to enter the property.
SEC. 363. INCENTIVIZING BANNING OF CHOKEHOLDS AND CAROTID
HOLDS.
(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``chokehold or
carotid hold'' means the application of any pressure to the
throat or windpipe, the use of maneuvers that restrict blood
or oxygen flow to the brain, or carotid artery restraints
that prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air of
an individual.
(b) Limitation on Eligibility for Funds.--Beginning in the
first fiscal year that begins after the date that is one year
after the date of enactment of this Act, a State or unit of
local government may not receive funds under the Byrne grant
program or the COPS grant program for a fiscal year if, on
the day before the first day of the fiscal year, the State or
unit of local government does not have in effect a law that
prohibits law enforcement officers in the State or unit of
local government from using a chokehold or carotid hold.
(c) Chokeholds as Civil Rights Violations.--
(1) Short title.--This subsection may be cited as the
``Eric Garner Excessive Use of Force Prevention Act''.
(2) Chokeholds as civil rights violations.--Section 242 of
title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 101, is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``For the
purposes of this section, the application of any pressure to
the throat or windpipe, use of maneuvers that restrict blood
or oxygen flow to the brain, or carotid artery restraints
which prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air is
a punishment, pain, or penalty.''.
SEC. 364. PEACE ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Police
Exercising Absolute Care With Everyone Act of 2021'' or the
``PEACE Act of 2021''.
(b) Use of Force by Federal Law Enforcement Officers.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Deescalation tactics and techniques.--The term
``deescalation tactics and techniques'' means proactive
actions and approaches used by a Federal law enforcement
officer to stabilize the situation so that more time,
options, and resources are available to gain a person's
voluntary compliance and reduce or eliminate the need to use
force, including verbal persuasion, warnings, tactical
techniques, slowing down the pace of an incident, waiting out
a subject, creating distance between the officer and the
threat, and requesting additional resources to resolve the
incident.
(B) Necessary.--The term ``necessary'' means that another
reasonable Federal law enforcement officer would objectively
conclude, under the totality of the circumstances, that there
was no reasonable alternative to the use of force.
(C) Reasonable alternatives.--
(i) In general.--The term ``reasonable alternatives'' means
tactics and methods used by a Federal law enforcement officer
to effectuate an arrest that do not unreasonably increase the
risk posed to the law enforcement officer or another person,
including verbal communication, distance, warnings,
deescalation tactics and techniques, tactical repositioning,
and other tactics and techniques intended to stabilize the
situation and reduce the immediacy of the risk so that more
time, options, and resources can be called upon to resolve
the situation without the use of force.
(ii) Deadly force.--With respect to the use of deadly
force, the term ``reasonable alternatives'' includes the use
of less lethal force.
(D) Totality of the circumstances.--The term ``totality of
the circumstances'' means all credible facts known to the
Federal law enforcement officer leading up to and at the time
of the use of force, including the actions of the person
against whom the Federal law enforcement officer uses such
force and the actions of the Federal law enforcement officer.
(2) Prohibition on less lethal force.--A Federal law
enforcement officer may not use any less lethal force
unless--
[[Page H1048]]
(A) the form of less lethal force used is necessary and
proportional in order to effectuate an arrest of a person who
the officer has probable cause to believe has committed a
criminal offense; and
(B) reasonable alternatives to the use of the form of less
lethal force have been exhausted.
(3) Prohibition on deadly use of force.--A Federal law
enforcement officer may not use deadly force against a person
unless--
(A) the form of deadly force used is necessary, as a last
resort, to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or
death to the officer or another person;
(B) the use of the form of deadly force creates no
substantial risk of injury to a third person; and
(C) reasonable alternatives to the use of the form of
deadly force have been exhausted.
(4) Requirement to give verbal warning.--When feasible,
prior to using force against a person, a Federal law
enforcement officer shall identify himself or herself as a
Federal law enforcement officer, and issue a verbal warning
to the person that the Federal law enforcement officer seeks
to apprehend, which shall--
(A) include a request that the person surrender to the law
enforcement officer; and
(B) notify the person that the law enforcement officer will
use force against the person if the person resists arrest or
flees.
(5) Guidance on use of force.--Not later than 120 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney
General, in consultation with impacted persons, communities,
and organizations, including representatives of civil and
human rights organizations, victims of police use of force,
and representatives of law enforcement associations, shall
provide guidance to Federal law enforcement agencies on--
(A) the types of less lethal force and deadly force that
are prohibited under paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(B) how a Federal law enforcement officer can--
(i) assess whether the use of force is appropriate and
necessary; and
(ii) use the least amount of force when interacting with--
(I) pregnant individuals;
(II) children and youth under 21 years of age;
(III) elderly persons;
(IV) persons with mental, behavioral, or physical
disabilities or impairments;
(V) persons experiencing perceptual or cognitive
impairments due to use of alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogens,
or other drugs;
(VI) persons suffering from a serious medical condition;
and
(VII) persons with limited English proficiency.
(6) Training.--The Attorney General shall provide training
to Federal law enforcement officers on interacting people
described in subclauses (I) through (VII) of paragraph
(5)(B)(ii).
(7) Limitation on justification defense.--
(A) In general.--Chapter 51 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1123. Limitation on justification defense for Federal
law enforcement officers
``(a) In General.--It is not a defense to an offense under
section 1111 or 1112 that the use of less lethal force or
deadly force by a Federal law enforcement officer was
justified if--
``(1) that officer's use of use of such force was
inconsistent with section 364(b) of the George Floyd Justice
in Policing Act of 2021; or
``(2) that officer's gross negligence, leading up to and at
the time of the use of force, contributed to the necessity of
the use of such force.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the terms `deadly force' and `less lethal force' have
the meanings given such terms in section 2 and section 364 of
the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021; and
``(2) the term `Federal law enforcement officer' has the
meaning given such term in section 115.''.
(B) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
51 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1122 the following:
``1123. Limitation on justification defense for Federal law enforcement
officers.''.
(c) Limitation on the Receipt of Funds Under the Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.--
(1) Limitation.--A State or unit of local government, other
than an Indian Tribe, may not receive funds that the State or
unit of local government would otherwise receive under a
Byrne grant program for a fiscal year if, on the day before
the first day of the fiscal year, the State or unit of local
government does not have in effect a law that is consistent
with subsection (b) of this section and section 1123 of title
18, United States Code, as determined by the Attorney
General.
(2) Subsequent enactment.--
(A) In general.--If funds described in paragraph (1) are
withheld from a State or unit of local government pursuant to
paragraph (1) for 1 or more fiscal years, and the State or
unit of local government enacts or puts in place a law
described in paragraph (1), and demonstrates substantial
efforts to enforce such law, subject to subparagraph (B), the
State or unit of local government shall be eligible, in the
fiscal year after the fiscal year during which the State or
unit of local government demonstrates such substantial
efforts, to receive the total amount that the State or unit
of local government would have received during each fiscal
year for which funds were withheld.
(B) Limit on amount of prior year funds.--A State or unit
of local government may not receive funds under subparagraph
(A) in an amount that is more than the amount withheld from
the State or unit of local government during the 5-fiscal-
year period before the fiscal year during which funds are
received under subparagraph (A).
(3) Guidance.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation
with impacted persons, communities, and organizations,
including representatives of civil and human rights
organizations, individuals against whom a law enforcement
officer used force, and representatives of law enforcement
associations, shall make guidance available to States and
units of local government on the criteria that the Attorney
General will use in determining whether the State or unit of
local government has in place a law described in paragraph
(1).
(4) Application.--This subsection shall apply to the first
fiscal year that begins after the date that is 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and each fiscal year
thereafter.
SEC. 365. STOP MILITARIZING LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Under section 2576a of title 10, United States Code,
the Department of Defense is authorized to provide excess
property to local law enforcement agencies. The Defense
Logistics Agency, administers such section by operating the
Law Enforcement Support Office program.
(2) New and used material, including mine-resistant ambush-
protected vehicles and weapons determined by the Department
of Defense to be ``military grade'' are transferred to
Federal, Tribal, State, and local law enforcement agencies
through the program.
(3) As a result local law enforcement agencies, including
police and sheriff's departments, are acquiring this material
for use in their normal operations.
(4) As a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
military equipment purchased for, and used in, those wars has
become excess property and has been made available for
transfer to local and Federal law enforcement agencies.
(5) In Fiscal Year 2017, $504,000,000 worth of property was
transferred to law enforcement agencies.
(6) More than $6,800,000,000 worth of weapons and equipment
have been transferred to police organizations in all 50
States and four territories through the program.
(7) In May 2012, the Defense Logistics Agency instituted a
moratorium on weapons transfers through the program after
reports of missing equipment and inappropriate weapons
transfers.
(8) Though the moratorium was widely publicized, it was
lifted in October 2013 without adequate safeguards.
(9) On January 16, 2015, President Barack Obama issued
Executive Order 13688 to better coordinate and regulate the
federal transfer of military weapons and equipment to State,
local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies.
(10) In July, 2017, the Government Accountability Office
reported that the program's internal controls were inadequate
to prevent fraudulent applicants' access to the program.
(11) On August, 28, 2017, President Donald Trump rescinded
Executive Order 13688 despite a July 2017 Government
Accountability Office report finding deficiencies with the
administration of the 1033 program.
(12) As a result, Federal, State, and local law enforcement
departments across the country are eligible again to acquire
free ``military-grade'' weapons and equipment that could be
used inappropriately during policing efforts in which people
and taxpayers could be harmed.
(13) The Department of Defense categorizes equipment
eligible for transfer under the 1033 program as
``controlled'' and ``un-controlled'' equipment. ``Controlled
equipment'' includes weapons, explosives such as flash-bang
grenades, mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, long-
range acoustic devices, aircraft capable of being modified to
carry armament that are combat coded, and silencers, among
other military grade items.
(b) Limitation on Department of Defense Transfer of
Personal Property to Local Law Enforcement Agencies.--
(1) In general.--Section 2576a of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``counterdrug,
counterterrorism, and border security activities'' and
inserting ``counterterrorism''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, the Director of
National Drug Control Policy,'';
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(7) the recipient submits to the Department of Defense a
description of how the recipient expects to use the property;
[[Page H1049]]
``(8) the recipient certifies to the Department of Defense
that if the recipient determines that the property is surplus
to the needs of the recipient, the recipient will return the
property to the Department of Defense;
``(9) with respect to a recipient that is not a Federal
agency, the recipient certifies to the Department of Defense
that the recipient notified the local community of the
request for personal property under this section by--
``(A) publishing a notice of such request on a publicly
accessible Internet website;
``(B) posting such notice at several prominent locations in
the jurisdiction of the recipient; and
``(C) ensuring that such notices were available to the
local community for a period of not less than 30 days; and
``(10) the recipient has received the approval of the city
council or other local governing body to acquire the personal
property sought under this section.'';
(C) by striking subsection (d);
(D) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(o) and (p), respectively; and
(E) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsections:
``(d) Annual Certification Accounting for Transferred
Property.--(1) For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress certification in writing that each Federal
or State agency to which the Secretary has transferred
property under this section--
``(A) has provided to the Secretary documentation
accounting for all controlled property, including arms and
ammunition, that the Secretary has transferred to the agency,
including any item described in subsection (f) so transferred
before the date of the enactment of the George Floyd Justice
in Policing Act of 2021; and
``(B) with respect to a non-Federal agency, carried out
each of paragraphs (5) through (8) of subsection (b).
``(2) If the Secretary does not provide a certification
under paragraph (1) for a Federal or State agency, the
Secretary may not transfer additional property to that agency
under this section.
``(e) Annual Report on Excess Property.--Before making any
property available for transfer under this section, the
Secretary shall annually submit to Congress a description of
the property to be transferred together with a certification
that the transfer of the property would not violate this
section or any other provision of law.
``(f) Limitations on Transfers.--(1) The Secretary may not
transfer to Federal, Tribal, State, or local law enforcement
agencies the following under this section:
``(A) Firearms, ammunition, bayonets, grenade launchers,
grenades (including stun and flash-bang), and explosives.
``(B) Vehicles, except for passenger automobiles (as such
term is defined in section 32901(a)(18) of title 49, United
States Code) and bucket trucks.
``(C) Drones.
``(D) Controlled aircraft that--
``(i) are combat configured or combat coded; or
``(ii) have no established commercial flight application.
``(E) Silencers.
``(F) Long-range acoustic devices.
``(G) Items in the Federal Supply Class of banned items.
``(2) The Secretary may not require, as a condition of a
transfer under this section, that a Federal or State agency
demonstrate the use of any small arms or ammunition.
``(3) The limitations under this subsection shall also
apply with respect to the transfer of previously transferred
property of the Department of Defense from one Federal or
State agency to another such agency.
``(4)(A) The Secretary may waive the applicability of
paragraph (1) to a vehicle described in subparagraph (B) of
such paragraph (other than a mine-resistant ambush-protected
vehicle), if the Secretary determines that such a waiver is
necessary for disaster or rescue purposes or for another
purpose where life and public safety are at risk, as
demonstrated by the proposed recipient of the vehicle.
``(B) If the Secretary issues a waiver under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary shall--
``(i) submit to Congress notice of the waiver, and post
such notice on a public Internet website of the Department,
by not later than 30 days after the date on which the waiver
is issued; and
``(ii) require, as a condition of the waiver, that the
recipient of the vehicle for which the waiver is issued
provides public notice of the waiver and the transfer,
including the type of vehicle and the purpose for which it is
transferred, in the jurisdiction where the recipient is
located by not later than 30 days after the date on which the
waiver is issued.
``(5) The Secretary may provide for an exemption to the
limitation under subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) in the
case of parts for aircraft described in such subparagraph
that are transferred as part of regular maintenance of
aircraft in an existing fleet.
``(6) The Secretary shall require, as a condition of any
transfer of property under this section, that the Federal or
State agency that receives the property shall return the
property to the Secretary if the agency--
``(A) is investigated by the Department of Justice for any
violation of civil liberties; or
``(B) is otherwise found to have engaged in widespread
abuses of civil liberties.
``(g) Conditions for Extension of Program.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, amounts authorized to be
appropriated or otherwise made available for any fiscal year
may not be obligated or expended to carry out this section
unless the Secretary submits to Congress certification that
for the preceding fiscal year that--
``(1) each Federal or State agency that has received
controlled property transferred under this section has--
``(A) demonstrated 100 percent accountability for all such
property, in accordance with paragraph (2) or (3), as
applicable; or
``(B) been suspended from the program pursuant to paragraph
(4);
``(2) with respect to each non-Federal agency that has
received controlled property under this section, the State
coordinator responsible for each such agency has verified
that the coordinator or an agent of the coordinator has
conducted an in-person inventory of the property transferred
to the agency and that 100 percent of such property was
accounted for during the inventory or that the agency has
been suspended from the program pursuant to paragraph (4);
``(3) with respect to each Federal agency that has received
controlled property under this section, the Secretary of
Defense or an agent of the Secretary has conducted an in-
person inventory of the property transferred to the agency
and that 100 percent of such property was accounted for
during the inventory or that the agency has been suspended
from the program pursuant to paragraph (4);
``(4) the eligibility of any agency that has received
controlled property under this section for which 100 percent
of the property was not accounted for during an inventory
described in paragraph (1) or (2), as applicable, to receive
any property transferred under this section has been
suspended; and
``(5) each State coordinator has certified, for each non-
Federal agency located in the State for which the State
coordinator is responsible that--
``(A) the agency has complied with all requirements under
this section; or
``(B) the eligibility of the agency to receive property
transferred under this section has been suspended; and
``(6) the Secretary of Defense has certified, for each
Federal agency that has received property under this section
that--
``(A) the agency has complied with all requirements under
this section; or
``(B) the eligibility of the agency to receive property
transferred under this section has been suspended.
``(h) Prohibition on Ownership of Controlled Property.--A
Federal or State agency that receives controlled property
under this section may not take ownership of the property.
``(i) Notice to Congress of Property Downgrades.--Not later
than 30 days before downgrading the classification of any
item of personal property from controlled or Federal Supply
Class, the Secretary shall submit to Congress notice of the
proposed downgrade.
``(j) Notice to Congress of Property Cannibalization.--
Before the Defense Logistics Agency authorizes the recipient
of property transferred under this section to cannibalize the
property, the Secretary shall submit to Congress notice of
such authorization, including the name of the recipient
requesting the authorization, the purpose of the proposed
cannibalization, and the type of property proposed to be
cannibalized.
``(k) Quarterly Reports on Use of Controlled Equipment.--
Not later than 30 days after the last day of a fiscal
quarter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on
any uses of controlled property transferred under this
section during that fiscal quarter.
``(l) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after
the last day of a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report on the following for the preceding fiscal
year:
``(1) The percentage of equipment lost by recipients of
property transferred under this section, including specific
information about the type of property lost, the monetary
value of such property, and the recipient that lost the
property.
``(2) The transfer of any new (condition code A) property
transferred under this section, including specific
information about the type of property, the recipient of the
property, the monetary value of each item of the property,
and the total monetary value of all such property transferred
during the fiscal year.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall apply with respect to any transfer of property made
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 366. PUBLIC SAFETY INNOVATION GRANTS.
(a) Byrne Grants Used for Local Task Forces on Public
Safety Innovation.--Section 501(a) of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151(a)), as
amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(3) Local task forces on public safety innovation.--
``(A) In general.--A law enforcement program under
paragraph (1)(A) may include the development of best
practices for and the creation of local task forces on public
safety innovation, charged with exploring and developing new
strategies for public safety, including non-law enforcement
strategies.
``(B) Definition.--The term `local task force on public
safety innovation' means an administrative entity, created
from partnerships between community-based organizations and
other local stakeholders, that may develop innovative law
enforcement and non-law enforcement strategies to enhance
just and equitable public safety, repair breaches of trust
between law enforcement agencies
[[Page H1050]]
and the community they pledge to serve, and enhance
accountability of law enforcement officers.''.
(b) Crisis Intervention Teams.--Section 501(c) of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34
U.S.C. 10152(c)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) In the case of crisis intervention teams funded under
subsection (a)(1)(H), a program assessment under this
subsection shall contain a report on best practices for
crisis intervention.''.
(c) Use of COPS Grant Program To Hire Law Enforcement
Officers Who Are Residents of the Communities They Serve.--
Section 1701(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381(b)), as amended by
this Act, is further amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (23) and (24) as paragraphs
(26) and (27), respectively;
(2) in paragraph (26), as so redesignated, by striking
``(22)'' and inserting ``(25)''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (22) the following:
``(23) to recruit, hire, incentivize, retain, develop, and
train new, additional career law enforcement officers or
current law enforcement officers who are willing to relocate
to communities--
``(A) where there are poor or fragmented relationships
between police and residents of the community, or where there
are high incidents of crime; and
``(B) that are the communities that the law enforcement
officers serve, or that are in close proximity to the
communities that the law enforcement officers serve;
``(24) to collect data on the number of law enforcement
officers who are willing to relocate to the communities where
they serve, and whether such law enforcement officer
relocations have impacted crime in such communities;
``(25) to develop and publicly report strategies and
timelines to recruit, hire, promote, retain, develop, and
train a diverse and inclusive law enforcement workforce,
consistent with merit system principles and applicable
law;''.
Subtitle C--Law Enforcement Body Cameras
PART 1--FEDERAL POLICE CAMERA AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
SEC. 371. SHORT TITLE.
This part may be cited as the ``Federal Police Camera and
Accountability Act''.
SEC. 372. REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
REGARDING THE USE OF BODY CAMERAS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Minor.--The term ``minor'' means any individual under
18 years of age.
(2) Subject of the video footage.--The term ``subject of
the video footage''--
(A) means any identifiable Federal law enforcement officer
or any identifiable suspect, victim, detainee, conversant,
injured party, or other similarly situated person who appears
on the body camera recording; and
(B) does not include people who only incidentally appear on
the recording.
(3) Video footage.--The term ``video footage'' means any
images or audio recorded by a body camera.
(b) Requirement to Wear Body Camera.--
(1) In general.--Federal law enforcement officers shall
wear a body camera.
(2) Requirement for body camera.--A body camera required
under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) have a field of view at least as broad as the officer's
vision; and
(B) be worn in a manner that maximizes the camera's ability
to capture video footage of the officer's activities.
(c) Requirement To Activate.--
(1) In general.--Both the video and audio recording
functions of the body camera shall be activated whenever a
Federal law enforcement officer is responding to a call for
service or at the initiation of any other law enforcement or
investigative stop (as such term is defined in section 373)
between a Federal law enforcement officer and a member of the
public, except that when an immediate threat to the officer's
life or safety makes activating the camera impossible or
dangerous, the officer shall activate the camera at the first
reasonable opportunity to do so.
(2) Allowable deactivation.--The body camera shall not be
deactivated until the stop has fully concluded and the
Federal law enforcement officer leaves the scene.
(d) Notification of Subject of Recording.--A Federal law
enforcement officer who is wearing a body camera shall notify
any subject of the recording that he or she is being recorded
by a body camera as close to the inception of the stop as is
reasonably possible.
(e) Requirements.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), the
following shall apply to the use of a body camera:
(1) Prior to entering a private residence without a warrant
or in non-exigent circumstances, a Federal law enforcement
officer shall ask the occupant if the occupant wants the
officer to discontinue use of the officer's body camera. If
the occupant responds affirmatively, the Federal law
enforcement officer shall immediately discontinue use of the
body camera.
(2) When interacting with an apparent crime victim, a
Federal law enforcement officer shall, as soon as
practicable, ask the apparent crime victim if the apparent
crime victim wants the officer to discontinue use of the
officer's body camera. If the apparent crime victim responds
affirmatively, the Federal law enforcement officer shall
immediately discontinue use of the body camera.
(3) When interacting with a person seeking to anonymously
report a crime or assist in an ongoing law enforcement
investigation, a Federal law enforcement officer shall, as
soon as practicable, ask the person seeking to remain
anonymous, if the person seeking to remain anonymous wants
the officer to discontinue use of the officer's body camera.
If the person seeking to remain anonymous responds
affirmatively, the Federal law enforcement officer shall
immediately discontinue use of the body camera.
(f) Recording of Offers To Discontinue Use of Body
Camera.--Each offer of a Federal law enforcement officer to
discontinue the use of a body camera made pursuant to
subsection (e), and the responses thereto, shall be recorded
by the body camera prior to discontinuing use of the body
camera.
(g) Limitations on Use of Body Camera.--Body cameras shall
not be used to gather intelligence information based on First
Amendment protected speech, associations, or religion, or to
record activity that is unrelated to a response to a call for
service or a law enforcement or investigative stop between a
law enforcement officer and a member of the public, and shall
not be equipped with or employ any facial recognition
technologies.
(h) Exceptions.--Federal law enforcement officers--
(1) shall not be required to use body cameras during
investigative or enforcement stops with the public in the
case that--
(A) recording would risk the safety of a confidential
informant, citizen informant, or undercover officer;
(B) recording would pose a serious risk to national
security; or
(C) the officer is a military police officer, a member of
the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, or a
protective detail assigned to a Federal or foreign official
while performing his or her duties; and
(2) shall not activate a body camera while on the grounds
of any public, private or parochial elementary or secondary
school, except when responding to an imminent threat to life
or health.
(i) Retention of Footage.--
(1) In general.--Body camera video footage shall be
retained by the law enforcement agency that employs the
officer whose camera captured the footage, or an authorized
agent thereof, for 6 months after the date it was recorded,
after which time such footage shall be permanently deleted.
(2) Right to inspect.--During the 6-month retention period
described in paragraph (1), the following persons shall have
the right to inspect the body camera footage:
(A) Any person who is a subject of body camera video
footage, and their designated legal counsel.
(B) A parent or legal guardian of a minor subject of body
camera video footage, and their designated legal counsel.
(C) The spouse, next of kin, or legally authorized designee
of a deceased subject of body camera video footage, and their
designated legal counsel.
(D) A Federal law enforcement officer whose body camera
recorded the video footage, and their designated legal
counsel, subject to the limitations and restrictions in this
part.
(E) The superior officer of a Federal law enforcement
officer whose body camera recorded the video footage, subject
to the limitations and restrictions in this part.
(F) Any defense counsel who claims, pursuant to a written
affidavit, to have a reasonable basis for believing a video
may contain evidence that exculpates a client.
(3) Limitation.--The right to inspect subject to subsection
(j)(1) shall not include the right to possess a copy of the
body camera video footage, unless the release of the body
camera footage is otherwise authorized by this part or by
another applicable law. When a body camera fails to capture
some or all of the audio or video of an incident due to
malfunction, displacement of camera, or any other cause, any
audio or video footage that is captured shall be treated the
same as any other body camera audio or video footage under
this part.
(j) Additional Retention Requirements.--Notwithstanding the
retention and deletion requirements in subsection (i), the
following shall apply to body camera video footage under this
part:
(1) Body camera video footage shall be automatically
retained for not less than 3 years if the video footage
captures an interaction or event involving--
(A) any use of force; or
(B) an stop about which a complaint has been registered by
a subject of the video footage.
(2) Body camera video footage shall be retained for not
less than 3 years if a longer retention period is voluntarily
requested by--
(A) the Federal law enforcement officer whose body camera
recorded the video footage, if that officer reasonably
asserts the video footage has evidentiary or exculpatory
value in an ongoing investigation;
(B) any Federal law enforcement officer who is a subject of
the video footage, if that officer reasonably asserts the
video footage has evidentiary or exculpatory value;
(C) any superior officer of a Federal law enforcement
officer whose body camera recorded the video footage or who
is a subject of the video footage, if that superior officer
reasonably asserts the video footage has evidentiary or
exculpatory value;
[[Page H1051]]
(D) any Federal law enforcement officer, if the video
footage is being retained solely and exclusively for police
training purposes;
(E) any member of the public who is a subject of the video
footage;
(F) any parent or legal guardian of a minor who is a
subject of the video footage; or
(G) a deceased subject's spouse, next of kin, or legally
authorized designee.
(k) Public Review.--For purposes of subparagraphs (E), (F),
and (G) of subsection (j)(2), any member of the public who is
a subject of video footage, the parent or legal guardian of a
minor who is a subject of the video footage, or a deceased
subject's next of kin or legally authorized designee, shall
be permitted to review the specific video footage in question
in order to make a determination as to whether they will
voluntarily request it be subjected to a minimum 3-year
retention period.
(l) Disclosure.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), all
video footage of an interaction or event captured by a body
camera, if that interaction or event is identified with
reasonable specificity and requested by a member of the
public, shall be provided to the person or entity making the
request in accordance with the procedures for requesting and
providing government records set forth in the section 552a of
title 5, United States Code.
(2) Exceptions.--The following categories of video footage
shall not be released to the public in the absence of express
written permission from the non-law enforcement subjects of
the video footage:
(A) Video footage not subject to a minimum 3-year retention
period pursuant to subsection (j).
(B) Video footage that is subject to a minimum 3-year
retention period solely and exclusively pursuant to paragraph
(1)(B) or (2) of subsection (j).
(3) Priority of requests.--Notwithstanding any time periods
established for acknowledging and responding to records
requests in section 552a of title 5, United States Code,
responses to requests for video footage that is subject to a
minimum 3-year retention period pursuant to subsection
(j)(1)(A), where a subject of the video footage is recorded
being killed, shot by a firearm, or grievously injured, shall
be prioritized and, if approved, the requested video footage
shall be provided as expeditiously as possible, but in no
circumstances later than 5 days following receipt of the
request.
(4) Use of redaction technology.--
(A) In general.--Whenever doing so is necessary to protect
personal privacy, the right to a fair trial, the identity of
a confidential source or crime victim, or the life or
physical safety of any person appearing in video footage,
redaction technology may be used to obscure the face and
other personally identifying characteristics of that person,
including the tone of the person's voice, provided the
redaction does not interfere with a viewer's ability to
fully, completely, and accurately comprehend the events
captured on the video footage.
(B) Requirements.--The following requirements shall apply
to redactions under subparagraph (A):
(i) When redaction is performed on video footage pursuant
to this paragraph, an unedited, original version of the video
footage shall be retained pursuant to the requirements of
subsections (i) and (j).
(ii) Except pursuant to the rules for the redaction of
video footage set forth in this subsection or where it is
otherwise expressly authorized by this Act, no other editing
or alteration of video footage, including a reduction of the
video footage's resolution, shall be permitted.
(m) Prohibited Withholding of Footage.--Body camera video
footage may not be withheld from the public on the basis that
it is an investigatory record or was compiled for law
enforcement purposes where any person under investigation or
whose conduct is under review is a police officer or other
law enforcement employee and the video footage relates to
that person's conduct in their official capacity.
(n) Admissibility.--Any video footage retained beyond 6
months solely and exclusively pursuant to subsection
(j)(2)(D) shall not be admissible as evidence in any criminal
or civil legal or administrative proceeding.
(o) Confidentiality.--No government agency or official, or
law enforcement agency, officer, or official may publicly
disclose, release, or share body camera video footage
unless--
(1) doing so is expressly authorized pursuant to this part
or another applicable law; or
(2) the video footage is subject to public release pursuant
to subsection (l), and not exempted from public release
pursuant to subsection (l)(1).
(p) Limitation on Federal Law Enforcement Officer Viewing
of Body Camera Footage.--No Federal law enforcement officer
shall review or receive an accounting of any body camera
video footage that is subject to a minimum 3-year retention
period pursuant to subsection (j)(1) prior to completing any
required initial reports, statements, and interviews
regarding the recorded event, unless doing so is necessary,
while in the field, to address an immediate threat to life or
safety.
(q) Additional Limitations.--Video footage may not be--
(1) in the case of footage that is not subject to a minimum
3-year retention period, viewed by any superior officer of a
Federal law enforcement officer whose body camera recorded
the footage absent a specific allegation of misconduct; or
(2) divulged or used by any law enforcement agency for any
commercial or other non-law enforcement purpose.
(r) Third Party Maintenance of Footage.--Where a law
enforcement agency authorizes a third party to act as its
agent in maintaining body camera footage, the agent shall not
be permitted to independently access, view, or alter any
video footage, except to delete videos as required by law or
agency retention policies.
(s) Enforcement.--
(1) In general.--If any Federal law enforcement officer, or
any employee or agent of a Federal law enforcement agency
fails to adhere to the recording or retention requirements
contained in this part, intentionally interferes with a body
camera's ability to accurately capture video footage, or
otherwise manipulates the video footage captured by a body
camera during or after its operation--
(A) appropriate disciplinary action shall be taken against
the individual officer, employee, or agent;
(B) a rebuttable evidentiary presumption shall be adopted
in favor of a criminal defendant who reasonably asserts that
exculpatory evidence was destroyed or not captured; and
(C) a rebuttable evidentiary presumption shall be adopted
on behalf of a civil plaintiff suing the Government, a
Federal law enforcement agency, or a Federal law enforcement
officer for damages based on misconduct who reasonably
asserts that evidence supporting their claim was destroyed or
not captured.
(2) Proof compliance was impossible.--The disciplinary
action requirement and rebuttable presumptions described in
paragraph (1) may be overcome by contrary evidence or proof
of exigent circumstances that made compliance impossible.
(t) Use of Force Investigations.--In the case that a
Federal law enforcement officer equipped with a body camera
is involved in, a witness to, or within viewable sight range
of either the use of force by another law enforcement officer
that results in a death, the use of force by another law
enforcement officer, during which the discharge of a firearm
results in an injury, or the conduct of another law
enforcement officer that becomes the subject of a criminal
investigation--
(1) the law enforcement agency that employs the law
enforcement officer, or the agency or department conducting
the related criminal investigation, as appropriate, shall
promptly take possession of the body camera, and shall
maintain such camera, and any data on such camera, in
accordance with the applicable rules governing the
preservation of evidence;
(2) a copy of the data on such body camera shall be made in
accordance with prevailing forensic standards for data
collection and reproduction; and
(3) such copied data shall be made available to the public
in accordance with subsection (l).
(u) Limitation on Use of Footage as Evidence.--Any body
camera video footage recorded by a Federal law enforcement
officer that violates this part or any other applicable law
may not be offered as evidence by any government entity,
agency, department, prosecutorial office, or any other
subdivision thereof in any criminal or civil action or
proceeding against any member of the public.
(v) Publication of Agency Policies.--Any Federal law
enforcement agency policy or other guidance regarding body
cameras, their use, or the video footage therefrom that is
adopted by a Federal agency or department, shall be made
publicly available on that agency's website.
(w) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this part shall be
construed to preempt any laws governing the maintenance,
production, and destruction of evidence in criminal
investigations and prosecutions.
SEC. 373. PATROL VEHICLES WITH IN-CAR VIDEO RECORDING
CAMERAS.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Audio recording.--The term ``audio recording'' means
the recorded conversation between a Federal law enforcement
officer and a second party.
(2) Emergency lights.--The term ``emergency lights'' means
oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights on patrol vehicles.
(3) Enforcement or investigative stop.--The term
``enforcement or investigative stop'' means an action by a
Federal law enforcement officer in relation to enforcement
and investigation duties, including traffic stops, pedestrian
stops, abandoned vehicle contacts, motorist assists,
commercial motor vehicle stops, roadside safety checks,
requests for identification, or responses to requests for
emergency assistance.
(4) In-car video camera.--The term ``in-car video camera''
means a video camera located in a patrol vehicle.
(5) In-car video camera recording equipment.--The term
``in-car video camera recording equipment'' means a video
camera recording system located in a patrol vehicle
consisting of a camera assembly, recording mechanism, and an
in-car video recording medium.
(6) Recording.--The term ``recording'' means the process of
capturing data or information stored on a recording medium as
required under this section.
(7) Recording medium.--The term ``recording medium'' means
any recording medium for the retention and playback of
recorded
[[Page H1052]]
audio and video including VHS, DVD, hard drive, solid state,
digital, or flash memory technology.
(8) Wireless microphone.--The term ``wireless microphone''
means a device worn by a Federal law enforcement officer or
any other equipment used to record conversations between the
officer and a second party and transmitted to the recording
equipment.
(b) Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Each Federal law enforcement agency shall
install in-car video camera recording equipment in all patrol
vehicles with a recording medium capable of recording for a
period of 10 hours or more and capable of making audio
recordings with the assistance of a wireless microphone.
(2) Recording equipment requirements.--In-car video camera
recording equipment with a recording medium capable of
recording for a period of 10 hours or more shall record
activities--
(A) whenever a patrol vehicle is assigned to patrol duty;
(B) outside a patrol vehicle whenever--
(i) a Federal law enforcement officer assigned that patrol
vehicle is conducting an enforcement or investigative stop;
(ii) patrol vehicle emergency lights are activated or would
otherwise be activated if not for the need to conceal the
presence of law enforcement; or
(iii) an officer reasonably believes recording may assist
with prosecution, enhance safety, or for any other lawful
purpose; and
(C) inside the vehicle when transporting an arrestee or
when an officer reasonably believes recording may assist with
prosecution, enhance safety, or for any other lawful purpose.
(3) Requirements for recording.--
(A) In general.--A Federal law enforcement officer shall
begin recording for an enforcement or investigative stop when
the officer determines an enforcement stop is necessary and
shall continue until the enforcement action has been
completed and the subject of the enforcement or investigative
stop or the officer has left the scene.
(B) Activation with lights.--A Federal law enforcement
officer shall begin recording when patrol vehicle emergency
lights are activated or when they would otherwise be
activated if not for the need to conceal the presence of law
enforcement, and shall continue until the reason for the
activation ceases to exist, regardless of whether the
emergency lights are no longer activated.
(C) Permissible recording.--A Federal law enforcement
officer may begin recording if the officer reasonably
believes recording may assist with prosecution, enhance
safety, or for any other lawful purpose; and shall continue
until the reason for recording ceases to exist.
(4) Enforcement or investigative stops.--A Federal law
enforcement officer shall record any enforcement or
investigative stop. Audio recording shall terminate upon
release of the violator and prior to initiating a separate
criminal investigation.
(c) Retention of Recordings.--Recordings made on in-car
video camera recording medium shall be retained for a storage
period of at least 90 days. Under no circumstances shall any
recording made on in-car video camera recording medium be
altered or erased prior to the expiration of the designated
storage period. Upon completion of the storage period, the
recording medium may be erased and reissued for operational
use unless otherwise ordered or if designated for evidentiary
or training purposes.
(d) Accessibility of Recordings.--Audio or video recordings
made pursuant to this section shall be available under the
applicable provisions of section 552a of title 5, United
States Code. Only recorded portions of the audio recording or
video recording medium applicable to the request will be
available for inspection or copying.
(e) Maintenance Required.--The agency shall ensure proper
care and maintenance of in-car video camera recording
equipment and recording medium. An officer operating a patrol
vehicle must immediately document and notify the appropriate
person of any technical difficulties, failures, or problems
with the in-car video camera recording equipment or recording
medium. Upon receiving notice, every reasonable effort shall
be made to correct and repair any of the in-car video camera
recording equipment or recording medium and determine if it
is in the public interest to permit the use of the patrol
vehicle.
SEC. 374. FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY.
No camera or recording device authorized or required to be
used under this part may be equipped with or employ facial
recognition technology, and footage from such a camera or
recording device may not be subjected to facial recognition
technology.
SEC. 375. GAO STUDY.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct a study on Federal law enforcement officer training,
vehicle pursuits, use of force, and interaction with
citizens, and submit a report on such study to--
(1) the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate;
(2) the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the House of
Representatives; and
(3) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate.
SEC. 376. REGULATIONS.
Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Attorney General shall issue such final
regulations as are necessary to carry out this part.
SEC. 377. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this part shall be construed to impose any
requirement on a Federal law enforcement officer outside of
the course of carrying out that officer's duty.
PART 2--POLICE CAMERA ACT
SEC. 381. SHORT TITLE.
This part may be cited as the ``Police Creating
Accountability by Making Effective Recording Available Act of
2021'' or the ``Police CAMERA Act of 2021''.
SEC. 382. LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY-WORN CAMERA REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Use of Funds Requirement.--Section 502(a) of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34
U.S.C. 10153(a)), as amended by section 334, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(10) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered by
an application, the applicant will use not less than 5
percent of the total amount of the grant award for the fiscal
year to develop policies and protocols in compliance with
part OO.''.
(b) Requirements.--Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``PART OO--LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY-WORN CAMERAS AND RECORDED DATA
``SEC. 3051. USE OF GRANT FUNDS.
``(a) In General.--Grant amounts described in paragraph
(10) of section 502(a) of this title--
``(1) shall be used--
``(A) to purchase or lease body-worn cameras for use by
State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers (as defined
in section 2503);
``(B) for expenses related to the implementation of a body-
worn camera program in order to deter excessive force,
improve accountability and transparency of use of force by
law enforcement officers, assist in responding to complaints
against law enforcement officers, and improve evidence
collection; and
``(C) to implement policies or procedures to comply with
the requirements described in subsection (b); and
``(2) may not be used for expenses related to facial
recognition technology.
``(b) Requirements.--A recipient of a grant under subpart 1
of part E of this title shall--
``(1) establish policies and procedures in accordance with
the requirements described in subsection (c) before law
enforcement officers use of body-worn cameras;
``(2) adopt recorded data collection and retention
protocols as described in subsection (d) before law
enforcement officers use of body-worn cameras;
``(3) make the policies and protocols described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) available to the public; and
``(4) comply with the requirements for use of recorded data
under subsection (f).
``(c) Required Policies and Procedures.--A recipient of a
grant under subpart 1 of part E of this title shall--
``(1) develop with community input and publish for public
view policies and protocols for--
``(A) the safe and effective use of body-worn cameras;
``(B) the secure storage, handling, and destruction of
recorded data collected by body-worn cameras;
``(C) protecting the privacy rights of any individual who
may be recorded by a body-worn camera;
``(D) the release of any recorded data collected by a body-
worn camera in accordance with the open records laws, if any,
of the State; and
``(E) making recorded data available to prosecutors,
defense attorneys, and other officers of the court in
accordance with subparagraph (E); and
``(2) conduct periodic evaluations of the security of the
storage and handling of the body-worn camera data.
``(d) Recorded Data Collection and Retention Protocol.--The
recorded data collection and retention protocol described in
this paragraph is a protocol that--
``(1) requires--
``(A) a law enforcement officer who is wearing a body-worn
camera to provide an explanation if an activity that is
required to be recorded by the body-worn camera is not
recorded;
``(B) a law enforcement officer who is wearing a body-worn
camera to obtain consent to be recorded from a crime victim
or witness before interviewing the victim or witness;
``(C) the collection of recorded data unrelated to a
legitimate law enforcement purpose be minimized to the
greatest extent practicable;
``(D) the system used to store recorded data collected by
body-worn cameras to log all viewing, modification, or
deletion of stored recorded data and to prevent, to the
greatest extent practicable, the unauthorized access or
disclosure of stored recorded data;
``(E) any law enforcement officer be prohibited from
accessing the stored data without an authorized purpose; and
``(F) the law enforcement agency to collect and report
statistical data on--
``(i) incidences of use of force, disaggregated by race,
ethnicity, gender, and age of the victim;
``(ii) the number of complaints filed against law
enforcement officers;
``(iii) the disposition of complaints filed against law
enforcement officers;
[[Page H1053]]
``(iv) the number of times camera footage is used for
evidence collection in investigations of crimes; and
``(v) any other additional statistical data that the
Director determines should be collected and reported;
``(2) allows an individual to file a complaint with a law
enforcement agency relating to the improper use of body-worn
cameras; and
``(3) complies with any other requirements established by
the Director.
``(e) Reporting.--Statistical data required to be collected
under subsection (d)(1)(D) shall be reported to the Director,
who shall--
``(1) establish a standardized reporting system for
statistical data collected under this program; and
``(2) establish a national database of statistical data
recorded under this program.
``(f) Use or Transfer of Recorded Data.--
``(1) In general.--Recorded data collected by an entity
receiving a grant under a grant under subpart 1 of part E of
this title from a body-worn camera shall be used only in
internal and external investigations of misconduct by a law
enforcement agency or officer, if there is reasonable
suspicion that a recording contains evidence of a crime, or
for limited training purposes. The Director shall establish
rules to ensure that the recorded data is used only for the
purposes described in this paragraph.
``(2) Prohibition on transfer.--Except as provided in
paragraph (3), an entity receiving a grant under subpart 1 of
part E of this title may not transfer any recorded data
collected by the entity from a body-worn camera to another
law enforcement or intelligence agency.
``(3) Exceptions.--
``(A) Criminal investigation.--An entity receiving a grant
under subpart 1 of part E of this title may transfer recorded
data collected by the entity from a body-worn camera to
another law enforcement agency or intelligence agency for use
in a criminal investigation if the requesting law enforcement
or intelligence agency has reasonable suspicion that the
requested data contains evidence relating to the crime being
investigated.
``(B) Civil rights claims.--An entity receiving a grant
under subpart 1 of part E of this title may transfer recorded
data collected by the law enforcement agency from a body-worn
camera to another law enforcement agency for use in an
investigation of the violation of any right, privilege, or
immunity secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of
the United States.
``(g) Audit and Assessment.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this part, the Director of the Office of Audit,
Assessment, and Management shall perform an assessment of the
use of funds under this section and the policies and
protocols of the grantees.
``(2) Reports.--Not later than September 1 of each year,
beginning 2 years after the date of enactment of this part,
each recipient of a grant under subpart 1 of part E of this
title shall submit to the Director of the Office of Audit,
Assessment, and Management a report that--
``(A) describes the progress of the body-worn camera
program; and
``(B) contains recommendations on ways in which the Federal
Government, States, and units of local government can further
support the implementation of the program.
``(3) Review.--The Director of the Office of Audit,
Assessment, and Management shall evaluate the policies and
protocols of the grantees and take such steps as the Director
of the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management determines
necessary to ensure compliance with the program.
``SEC. 3052. BODY-WORN CAMERA TRAINING TOOLKIT.
``(a) In General.--The Director shall establish and
maintain a body-worn camera training toolkit for law
enforcement agencies, academia, and other relevant entities
to provide training and technical assistance, including best
practices for implementation, model policies and procedures,
and research materials.
``(b) Mechanism.--In establishing the toolkit required to
under subsection (a), the Director may consolidate research,
practices, templates, and tools that been developed by expert
and law enforcement agencies across the country.
``SEC. 3053. STUDY.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of the Police CAMERA Act of 2021, the Director
shall conduct a study on--
``(1) the efficacy of body-worn cameras in deterring
excessive force by law enforcement officers;
``(2) the impact of body-worn cameras on the accountability
and transparency of the use of force by law enforcement
officers;
``(3) the impact of body-worn cameras on responses to and
adjudications of complaints of excessive force;
``(4) the effect of the use of body-worn cameras on the
safety of law enforcement officers on patrol;
``(5) the effect of the use of body-worn cameras on public
safety;
``(6) the impact of body-worn cameras on evidence
collection for criminal investigations;
``(7) issues relating to the secure storage and handling of
recorded data from the body-worn cameras;
``(8) issues relating to the privacy of individuals and
officers recorded on body-worn cameras;
``(9) issues relating to the constitutional rights of
individuals on whom facial recognition technology is used;
``(10) issues relating to limitations on the use of facial
recognition technology;
``(11) issues relating to the public's access to body-worn
camera footage;
``(12) the need for proper training of law enforcement
officers that use body-worn cameras;
``(13) best practices in the development of protocols for
the safe and effective use of body-worn cameras;
``(14) a review of law enforcement agencies that found
body-worn cameras to be unhelpful in the operations of the
agencies; and
``(15) any other factors that the Director determines are
relevant in evaluating the efficacy of body-worn cameras.
``(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date on
which the study required under subsection (a) is completed,
the Director shall submit to Congress a report on the study,
which shall include any policy recommendations that the
Director considers appropriate.''.
TITLE IV--CLOSING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONSENT LOOPHOLE
SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Closing the Law
Enforcement Consent Loophole Act of 2021''.
SEC. 402. PROHIBITION ON ENGAGING IN SEXUAL ACTS WHILE ACTING
UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
(a) In General.--Section 2243 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by adding at the end the
following: ``or by any person acting under color of law'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(d) and (e), respectively;
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Of an Individual by Any Person Acting Under Color of
Law.--
``(1) In general.--Whoever, acting under color of law,
knowingly engages in a sexual act with an individual,
including an individual who is under arrest, in detention, or
otherwise in the actual custody of any Federal law
enforcement officer, shall be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.
``(2) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `sexual
act' has the meaning given the term in section 2246.''; and
(4) in subsection (d), as so redesignated, by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) In a prosecution under subsection (c), it is not a
defense that the other individual consented to the sexual
act.''.
(b) Definition.--Section 2246 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) the term `Federal law enforcement officer' has the
meaning given the term in section 115.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
109A of title 18, United States Code, is amended by amending
the item related to section 2243 to read as follows:
``2243. Sexual abuse of a minor or ward or by any person acting under
color of law.''.
SEC. 403. ENACTMENT OF LAWS PENALIZING ENGAGING IN SEXUAL
ACTS WHILE ACTING UNDER COLOR OF LAW.
(a) In General.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that
begins after the date that is one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, in the case of a State or unit of
local government that does not have in effect a law described
in subsection (b), if that State or unit of local government
that would otherwise receive funds under the COPS grant
program, that State or unit of local government shall not be
eligible to receive such funds. In the case of a multi-
jurisdictional or regional consortium, if any member of that
consortium is a State or unit of local government that does
not have in effect a law described in subsection (b), if that
consortium would otherwise receive funds under the COPS grant
program, that consortium shall not be eligible to receive
such funds.
(b) Description of Law.--A law described in this subsection
is a law that--
(1) makes it a criminal offense for any person acting under
color of law of the State or unit of local government to
engage in a sexual act with an individual, including an
individual who is under arrest, in detention, or otherwise in
the actual custody of any law enforcement officer; and
(2) prohibits a person charged with an offense described in
paragraph (1) from asserting the consent of the other
individual as a defense.
(c) Reporting Requirement.--A State or unit of local
government that receives a grant under the COPS grant program
shall submit to the Attorney General, on an annual basis,
information on--
(1) the number of reports made to law enforcement agencies
in that State or unit of local government regarding persons
engaging in a sexual act while acting under color of law
during the previous year; and
(2) the disposition of each case in which sexual misconduct
by a person acting under
[[Page H1054]]
color of law was reported during the previous year.
SEC. 404. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) Report by Attorney General.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year
thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a
report containing--
(1) the information required to be reported to the Attorney
General under section 403(b); and
(2) information on--
(A) the number of reports made, during the previous year,
to Federal law enforcement agencies regarding persons
engaging in a sexual act while acting under color of law; and
(B) the disposition of each case in which sexual misconduct
by a person acting under color of law was reported.
(b) Report by GAO.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to
Congress a report on any violations of section 2243(c) of
title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 402,
committed during the 1-year period covered by the report.
SEC. 405. DEFINITION.
In this title, the term ``sexual act'' has the meaning
given the term in section 2246 of title 18, United States
Code.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this Act, or the application of such a
provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be
unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and the
application of the remaining provisions of this Act to any
person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. 502. SAVINGS CLAUSE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit legal or administrative remedies under section
1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (42 U.S.C.
1983), section 210401 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12601), title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C.
10101 et seq.), or title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.);
(2) to affect any Federal, State, or Tribal law that
applies to an Indian Tribe because of the political status of
the Tribe; or
(3) to waive the sovereign immunity of an Indian Tribe
without the consent of the Tribe.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1280.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, last summer, millions of Americans all across the
country took to the streets to demand fundamental change in the culture
of law enforcement and to call for meaningful accountability for
officers who commit misconduct.
The catalyst for these protests was the tragic and brutal death of
George Floyd. None of us can forget the image of that officer's knee
pinned to his neck for nearly 8 agonizing minutes, or the sound of his
anguished pleas of ``I can't breathe'' that were ignored until his
final breath was taken from him.
After his death, the world awoke to daily indignities, and sometimes
the brutality, that too many people--disproportionately Black, Latinx,
and indigenous people, people living in poverty, and people with
disabilities--face in their interactions with law enforcement
throughout the country.
We value and respect the many brave and honorable police officers who
put their lives on the line every day to protect us and our
communities. We know that most law enforcement officers do their jobs
with dignity, selflessness, and honor, and they are deserving of our
respect and gratitude for all they do to keep us safe. But we must also
acknowledge that there are too many exceptions.
The reality for too many Americans, especially many Black Americans,
is that police officers are perceived as a threat to their liberties;
to their dignity; and, too often, to their safety. Sadly, our country's
history of racism and racially motivated violence continues to haunt
our Nation.
We see it in the rates of COVID deaths, in our system of mass
incarceration, and in the vast chasm of economic inequality, all of
which fall disproportionately on the backs of African Americans. And we
see it in the harassment and excessive force that many people of color
routinely experience by law enforcement.
That is why we must act today. The George Floyd Justice in Policing
Act would allow for meaningful accountability in cases of police
misconduct. It also effectively bans choke holds, ends racial and
religious profiling, ends no-knock warrants in drug cases, and limits
the militarization of local policing.
It encourages departments to meet a gold standard in training and
other best practices to reduce police bias and violence. It requires
significant data collection, including the first-ever national database
on police-misconduct incidents to prevent the movement of dangerous
officers from department to department.
In addition, this legislation creates a process to reimagine how
public safety could work in a truly equitable and just way in each
community.
Last summer, within weeks of the protests that galvanized the Nation,
the House passed the legislation before us today. Unfortunately, the
pleas for justice that rang out in the streets fell on deaf ears in the
Senate.
Since then, over 600 more people--disproportionately people of
color--have been killed by law enforcement officers.
The time for action is now.
I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass) for crafting this
bold, yet responsible, legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), a retired police officer.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1280,
the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
With something as important as police reform, it is important to
garner many perspectives. The JUSTICE Act, legislation Senator Scott
and I introduced, is a product of my perspective as a law enforcement
officer from Minnesota and Senator Scott's perspective as a Black man
from South Carolina.
The JUSTICE Act increases body cameras and implements duty to
intervene and deescalation training. It improves hiring and recruitment
practices. It reinvigorates the principles of community policing to
rebuild the relationships between law enforcement officers and the
communities that they serve.
The JUSTICE Act, which received bipartisan support last Congress,
includes several critical provisions that are supported by Democrats:
the Walter Scott Notification Act, the National Criminal Justice
Commission Act, and the Closing the Law Enforcement Consent Loophole
Act. It even includes legislation that Vice President Harris
introduced, the Justice for Victims of Lynching Act.
Unfortunately, we are not considering the JUSTICE Act today. We are,
instead, once again, exploring political gamesmanship through H.R.
1280.
Now, when we voted on this legislation last year, the Democrats knew
it was dead upon passage, but my good friends and I in the Problem
Solvers Caucus decided that this conversation was too important to let
go. So we worked for months with Representatives from both sides of the
aisle, with Representatives from the Congressional Black Caucus, with
Representatives from law enforcement and legal backgrounds, on areas
where we could find compromise between the Justice in Policing Act and
my bill, the JUSTICE Act.
We discussed no-knock warrants, the 1033 program, use of force,
record retention, and so much more. We were making such great headway.
I truly believed that we could have put together a bipartisan package
of reforms for our American communities that have been calling for
change.
Unfortunately, the other side walked away. As the election drew near,
the priorities of my Democratic colleagues shifted. Their fight to
retain power became more important than providing police reform for the
American people.
So now we are here again, Mr. Speaker, to vote on the exact same bill
without a single change; a bill that has zero
[[Page H1055]]
input from Republicans, zero input or support from our law enforcement
community. And I will repeat that. Zero input or support from our law
enforcement community.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that will, no doubt, make
our communities less safe. We all want police reform and we all want
change, but until such time as we work together, this legislation is
just another messaging bill from my Democrat colleagues.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Bass), the chief sponsor of this legislation.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago today, Rodney King was viciously
beaten by police officers in Los Angeles. It would be the first time
the world would witness what African Americans had been organizing,
marching, and trying to change for over 100 years.
Personally, I was hopeful that once everyone saw what happens in
Black communities, policing in America would change. I was certain no
one would deny what they saw with their own eyes and that the officers
would be convicted. But they were acquitted. Some were even hired by
other police departments.
The sad truth was, when people told their stories of abuse or even
murder at the hands of police officers, they were simply not believed.
The story was always the same: I was in fear of my life. I thought they
had a gun. The person was resisting arrest. The individual attempted to
assault me.
That is all that was needed for the beating or murder to be
discounted, dismissed. The individuals' lives had little value.
Even children. These are children here. This is an 8-year-old, a 10-
year-old, a mother, and another child placed on the ground because the
mother was suspected of stealing a car.
Several years after Rodney King's beating, cell phone cameras were
invented. It has taken technology and active citizen involvement to
document and expose this reality. And now there are many tapes, many
examples of individuals being shot and killed by officers, yet
transformation of policing in America has still not happened.
Passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act will be a critical
first step--just a first step--to transform policing in America. The
bill raises the standards for policing and holds those officers
accountable who fail to uphold the ethic of protecting and serving
their communities.
{time} 1830
Now, I know that change is difficult, but I am certain that police
officers who risk their lives every day are concerned about their
profession, and they don't work in an environment where they are
chastised for intervening when they see a fellow officer abuse a
citizen or use deadly force when it is not necessary. And I am certain
that police officers want to make sure that they are trained in the
best practices in policing.
To support officers, this legislation will create the first-ever
national accreditation standards for the operation of police
departments, set national standards for officers, and establish best
practices in training, hiring, deescalation strategies, and bystander
duty.
For example, if officers had better training, maybe they would
understand that just because someone can verbally express ``I can't
breathe,'' does not mean they are faking and the officer can continue
to press on the person's chest, back, or neck. And despite our best
intentions, there will be some officers who cross over the line.
Mr. Speaker, that is why this bill also includes strong
accountability measures, both as a matter of simple justice, and to
keep unfit officers off the street. A profession where you have the
power to kill should be a profession that requires highly trained
officers who are accountable to the public. That is what this bill
accomplishes.
Police officers are the first to say it is unfair that they are not
trained to be social workers or healthcare providers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentlewoman.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, the Justice in Policing Act reinvests in our
communities.
If this legislation had been the law of the land several years ago,
Eric Garner and George Floyd would be alive today, because the bill
bans choke holds.
If the bill had been law last year, Breonna Taylor would not have
been shot to death in her sleep, because no-knock warrants for drug
offenses would have been illegal.
And if a national registry had been in effect, it would have been
revealed that the officer who killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice--
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Biggs), the ranking member of the Crime, Terrorism and
Homeland Security Subcommittee.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Budget Office confirmed earlier this
week that the Justice in Policing Act contains an unfunded mandate by
requiring onerous data collection reporting from State and local law
enforcement. This includes granular data collection on such basic law
enforcement activities, like traffic stops. CBO estimates that this
unfunded mandate placed on State and local law enforcement will cost
several hundred million dollars.
The consequences of H.R. 1280 are clear. It will drain resources away
from important public safety activities. Instead, law enforcement
officers will have to spend their time reporting data to Washington,
D.C., from behind a desk. Make no mistake. This bill defunds the
police.
Additionally, any Member who is opposed to defunding the police
should be opposing this bill. This legislation will also lower the mens
rea standard when charging an officer with criminal misconduct. It
removes qualified immunity, which will result in an ineffectual police
force and leave our communities vulnerable to crime, and it also
severely limits the Department of Defense's 1033 program.
Mr. Speaker, but make no mistake, regardless of whatever else you may
feel about this bill, this bill defunds police. We can never forget
that. If you oppose defunding the police, you should be opposing this
bill, like I am.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the tragic death of George Floyd has
awakened the Nation, the world.
Last summer, in response to a call for action from righteous
protestors across the Nation, we had to stand up. And we know that 8
minutes and 46 seconds are printed and imprinted in the brains of those
around the world. There is no defunding of the police. It is standing
up the police and the community.
Today, we are honored that the George Floyd family did not turn to
bitterness, but they turned to justice. Their parents, Larcenia and
George; his daughter, Gianna; his siblings, Philonise, Zsa Zsa
Williams, LaTonya Floyd, Rodney Floyd, Bridgett Floyd, Terrence Floyd,
and a nephew, Brandon Williams.
We know that we will be ending racial profiling now. We know that we
will have qualified immunity for justice in the courts. We know that
there will be training on racial bias. We will ban no-knock. We will
ban choke holds. We will make sure that we end the racial profiling
that caused George to come out of a grocery store and have someone's
knee on his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the world has stood up and justice is about to be rained
on us.
Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, as
an original cosponsor of the legislation, and the author of several of
its key legislative provisions, I rise in strong and enthusiastic
support of H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act of 2021,
which marks a defining turning point in our country.
Let me say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that any questions that there
continues to exist today racial double-standards, disparities, and
system racism in policing and the administration of justice were
conclusively laid to rest by
[[Page H1056]]
what social scientists would regard as a ``natural experiment'' that
took place in Washington, D.C., beginning in the summer and culminating
with the January 6, 2021, insurrection and siege of the U.S. Capitol by
Trump seditionists incited by the 45th President of the United States.
Mass protests and political rallies took place in Washington, D.C.,
started May 29, 2020, four days after George Floyd died in Minnesota
after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck for more than
eight minutes.
By the millions, Americans took to the streets in protest to affirm
that no longer will the people of this country tolerate or acquiesce in
horrible policing practices that include excessive and unnecessary uses
of lethal force that has diminished community trust of policing
practices across the country and has angered and terrified communities
of color who are overwhelmingly and disproportionately its innocent
victims.
Within days of the demonstrations, U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr
announced that multiple law enforcement agencies, including the
National Guard, Secret Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation,
would ``flood the zone'' in D.C.
Thousands of law enforcement officials, armed with tear gas, rubber
bullets and firearms were deployed to protect the city.
Hundreds of people were arrested, D.C. police records show.
More than 300 were arrested on June 1, 2020, the day Attorney General
Barr ordered law enforcement to forcefully clear peaceful protesters
from a perimeter near the White House, making room for President Trump
to pose for cameras while waving a Bible in front of St. John's
Episcopal Church.
It was the largest number of arrests recorded for any day during the
summer of events.
Across the nation, law enforcement made an estimated 14,000 arrests
in 49 U.S. cities during anti-racism protests in the summer of 2020,
according to the Washington Post.
Following the November 3, 2020, election of Joe Eiden and running
mate Kamala Harris, large groups of Trump supporters held rallies in
the city, where they clashed with counter-protesters.
Police made 20 arrests during the so-called Million MAGA March on
November 14, 2020, an event in which Trump-supporters, including White
nationalists, far-right extremist groups, and conservative politicians
gathered in D.C. to protest the election results.
And, incredibly, only 61 arrests were made of rioters, who were
overwhelming white and who used violence, that stormed the Capitol on
January 6, an attack that claimed the lives of at least six persons,
injured hundreds of others, caused horrific damage to property and
national treasures, and inflicted emotional scars that will not heal
for generations.
But most of these arrests are related to charges involving curfew
violations--D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser announced a 6 p.m. curfew, though
mobs had broken into the Capitol hours earlier, around 1:30 p.m.
There were only four non-curfew-related arrests, compared to 40 non-
curfew-related arrests during Black Lives Matter protests on June 1,
2020.
Mr. Speaker, the horrifying killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020
by a Minneapolis police office shocked and awakened the moral
consciousness of the nation.
Untold millions saw the terrifying last 8:46 of life drained from a
Black man, George Floyd, taking his last breaths face down in the
street with his neck under the knee of a police officer who, along with
his three cohorts, was indifferent to his cries for help and pleas that
he ``can't breathe.''
In direct response, for past several months civil protests against
police brutality have occurred nightly in cities large and small all
across the nation.
These protests were a direct reaction to the horrific killing of
George Floyd but are most motivated by a deep-seated anger and
frustration to the separate and unequal justice African Americans
receive at the hands of too many law enforcement officers.
The civil disobedience witnessed nightly in the streets of America
were also in memory of countless acts of the inequality and cruelty
visited upon young African American men and women no longer with us in
body but forever with us in memory.
Beloved souls like Breanna Taylor in Louisville, Kentucky; Eric
Garner and Sean Bell in New York City; 12-year old Tamir Rice in
Cleveland; and Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
They remember the senseless killings as well of Ahmaud Arbery and
Trayvon Martin by self-appointed vigilantes.
Stephon Clark, was an unarmed 22-year-old African American male from
Sacramento, California, who was shot 23 times and killed by two
uniformed members of the Sacramento Police Department on Sunday
afternoon, March 18, 2018, in his grandmother's backyard, leaving
behind two small children because police officers claim that he had a
gun but no weapon was found at the scene, only a cell phone.
In August 2019, Elijah McClain, a 23-year-old African American man,
was simply listening to music while walking home from a convenience
store when he was stopped without basis by officers of the Aurora,
Colorado Police Department, put into a carotid hold and given multiple
doses of ketamine, which caused cardiac arrest from which he fell into
a coma and died three days later.
And the continuing need for their activism was reflected in the
recent outrage, which began on June 12, 2020, and ended in the
senseless slaughter of Rayshard Brooks, who was simply sleeping in his
car at a local Wendy's restaurant, by a uniformed officer of the
Atlanta Police Department.
It was reflected again on August 23, 2020, when a Kenosha Police
Department officer shot Jacob S. Blake, a 29-year-old black man, in the
back seven times--yes seven--as he attempted to enter his SUV where
three of his young sons were in the back seat.
We know the pain and heartbreak in my home state of Texas and the
City of Houston where Robbie Tolan's promising Major League Baseball
was career was cut short after being shot by Bellaire Police Department
officer in the front yard of his parents' home.
And Sandra Bland, a 28-year-old African American female who was
arrested after a traffic stop just outside of Houston, Texas, and found
dead in a Waller County jail cell three days later.
Or Pamela Turner, an unarmed 44-year old African American mother of
three who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, who was killed outside
her home in Baytown, Texas, by an officer of the Baytown Police
Department, on Monday, May 13, 2019, the day after Mother's Day.
Or Jordan Baker, an unarmed 26-year-old African American male from
Houston, Texas, who was shot to death by an off-duty uniformed member
of the Houston Police Department in the parking lot of a Harris County
shopping mall on January 16, 2014.
Or Danny Ray Thomas, an unarmed 34-year-old African American male,
who was shot to death by a uniformed officer of the Harris County
Sheriffs Department on March 22, 2018, in Houston, Texas.
Indeed, the history goes back much further, past Amidou Diallo in New
York City, past the Central Park Five, past Emmitt Till, past the
racist abuse of law enforcement power during the struggle for civil
rights and equal treatment.
Mr. Speaker, the times we are in demand that action be taken and that
is precisely what my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, on
this committee, and Congressional Democrats did in introducing H.R.
1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.
And we are taking the next bold action today in voting to pass this
legislation and send it to the Senate and on to the White House for
presidential signature and enactment.
I support this bold legislation not just as a senior member of the
House Judiciary Committee, who also served on the House Working Group
on Police Strategies, but also a mother of a young African American
male who knows the anxiety that African American mothers feel until
they can hug their sons and daughters who return home safely, and on
behalf of all those relatives and friends who grieve over the loss a
loved one whose life and future was wrongly and cruelly interrupted or
ended by mistreatment at the hands of the police.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 is designed to
destroy the pillars of systemic racism in policing practices that has
victimized communities of color, and especially African Americans for
decades, is overdue, too long overdue.
This legislation puts the Congress of the United States on record
against racial profiling in policing and against the excessive,
unjustified, and discriminatory use of lethal and force by law
enforcement officers against persons of color.
The legislation means no longer will employment of practices that
encourage systemic mistreatment of persons because of their race be
ignored or tolerated.
With our vote today to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act
of 2021, the government of the United States is declaring firmly,
forcefully, and unequivocally that Black Lives Matter.
It is true all lives matter, they always have.
But that Black lives matter too, and in so many other areas of civic
life, this nation has not always lived up to its promise but that the
promise is worthy of fulfilling.
Every African American parent, and every African America child, knows
all too well `The Talk' and the importance of abiding by the rules for
surviving interactions with the police.
While many police officers take this responsibility seriously and
strive to treat all persons
[[Page H1057]]
equally and with respect, their efforts are too often undermined by
some of their colleagues who abuse the enormous trust and confidence
placed in them.
And systemically racist systems and practices left in place can
corrupt even the most virtuous police officers.
So, the most important criminal justice reforms needed to improve the
criminal justice system are those that will increase public confidence
and build trust and mutual respect between law enforcement and the
communities they swear an oath and are willing to risk their lives to
protect and serve.
That is the overriding purpose and aim of the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act of 2021, which contains numerous provisions to weed out
and eliminate systemic racism in police practices.
Specifically, this legislation holds police accountable in our courts
by:
Amending the mens rea requirement in federal law (18 U.S.C. Section
242) to prosecute police misconduct from ``willfulness'' to a
``recklessness'' standard;
Reforming qualified immunity so that individuals are not barred from
recovering damages when police violate their constitutional rights;
Incentivizing state attorneys general to conduct pattern and practice
investigations and improving the use of pattern and practice
investigations at the federal level by granting the Department of
Justice Civil Rights Division subpoena power;
Incentivizing states to create independent investigative structures
for police involved deaths; and
Creating best practices recommendations based on the Obama 21st
Century Policing Task force.
As recognized by scholars at Cato--the conservative think tank Cato--
the time has come to abolish qualified immunity.
According to Cato, ``qualified immunity is a legally baseless
judicial invention'' that has ``proven unworkable as a matter of
judicial doctrine,'' and ``routinely denies justice to the victims of
egregious misconduct and undermines public accountability across the
board, especially for members of law enforcement.''
I am particularly pleased that the George Floyd Justice in Policing
Act includes the End Racial Profiling Now Act, which I introduced to
ban the pernicious practice of racial profiling.
In addition, I am proud that this legislation includes as Title I,
Subtitle B, the bipartisan and bicameral George Floyd Law Enforcement
Trust and Integrity Act, which I introduced with Congressman Jason Crow
of Colorado in the 116th Congress as H.R. 7100.
This legislation provides incentives for local police organizations
to voluntarily adopt performance-based standards to ensure that
incidents of deadly force or misconduct will be minimized through
appropriate management and training protocols and properly
investigated, should they occur.
The legislation directs the Department of Justice to work
cooperatively with independent accreditation, law enforcement and
community-based organizations to further develop and refine the
accreditation standards and grants conditional authority to the
Department of Justice to make grants to law enforcement agencies for
the purpose of obtaining accreditation from certified law enforcement
accreditation organizations.
As I have stated many times, direct action is vitally important but
to be effective it must be accompanied by political, legislative, and
governmental action, which is necessary because the strength and
foundation of democratic government rests upon the consent and
confidence of the governed.
Effective enforcement of the law and administration of justice
requires the confidence of the community that the law will be enforced
impartially and that all persons are treated equally without regard to
race or ethnicity or religion or national origin.
As the great jurist Judge Learned Hand said: ``If we are to keep our
democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shalt not ration
justice.''
Equal justice is the proud promise America makes to all persons; the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021 will help make that
promise a lived reality for African Americans, who have not ever known
it to be true in the area of community-police relations.
And when Black Lives Matter, then and only then can it truthfully be
said that all lives matter.
Finally, let me say a few words in memory of the man whose sacrifice
of his inalienable right to life has galvanized the world and awakened
the sleeping giant of moral decency.
Mr. Speaker, let me pay tribute to the person for whom this
legislation is named and to his family.
George Floyd, also known lovingly as ``Big Floyd,'' ``Perry,'' or
``The Gentle Giant,'' loved life, his family, friends, and community
and throughout his life used his love of sports and music to leave a
positive impact on this world.
Mr. Speaker, rather than giving in to bitterness and hate, the family
of George Floyd has channeled the pain and heartbreak of the tragic
loss of their beloved George into the creation of a force for good: The
George Floyd Memorial Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) non-profit, to
promote global awareness about racial injustice and provide
opportunities for others to contribute to the unification of our
communities and touch the world.
Let me thank each member of the Floyd family and list them by name:
his parents, Larcenia Jones-Floyd and George Perry Floyd, Sr.; his
daughter, Gianna Floyd; his siblings Philonise Floyd, Zsa Zsa Williams,
LaTonya Floyd, Rodney Floyd, Bridget Floyd, Terrence Floyd; and nephew,
Brandon ``WOO'' Williams.
Mr. Speaker, in Acts 2:23 of the Scriptures it is written that ``This
man was handed over to you by God's deliberate plan and foreknowledge;
and you with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to
the cross.''
Duty calls us to to improve the quality of policing in America.
We cannot agitate for change one day and then allow things to remain
the same, to allow wicked men to keep committing this crime against
humanity.
This behavior did not begin with George Floyd; there is a 400-year
history here, from slave patrols, to Jim Crow to Bull Connor to the
modern-day lynching of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek
Chauvin.
But the good news is that right is on our side; God has stepped in.
In John 1:46 it is said, ``can anything good come out of Nazareth?''
When he was growing up, I am sure there were people who saw George
Floyd and asked can anything good come out of the Third Ward of
Houston?
We now know the answer is clearly yes.
George Floyd was here in service to God's divine plan.
And as his daughter Gianna said, her Daddy changed the world.
Thank you, George Floyd for what you have done for us, for helping us
find our voice and our resolve.
We will not let you down; we will finish the job.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentlewoman just said that there was no defunding of the police.
I would just point out Democrat-controlled cities around the country:
Austin, Texas, $150 million cut;
Baltimore, Maryland, $22 million;
Boston, $12 million;
Burlington, $1 million;
Columbus, $23 million;
Denver, $55 million;
Eureka, California, $1.2 million;
Hartford, $2 million;
Los Angeles, $175 million;
Madison, Wisconsin, $2 million;
Minneapolis, $8 million;
New York, $1 billion;
Norman, $865,000;
Oakland, $14.6 million;
Oklahoma City, $5.5 million;
Philadelphia, $33 million;
Portland, Oregon, $15 million;
Salt Lake City, $5.3 million;
San Francisco, $120 million;
Seattle, $69 million;
Washington, D.C., $15 million cut.
That is what Democrats have done over the last year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1280.
I spent the last week talking to law enforcement officers in Utah.
These men and women are heroes. They are good, honest officers who risk
their lives every day to keep us safe.
I asked them about H.R. 1280, and this is what they said:
``This will destroy public safety.''
``We haven't done anything to earn this type of distrust.''
``This will push good law enforcement out of the business.''
``Utah is an amazing place. We have the right people protecting us.
Let's keep them here.''
Mr. Speaker, police reform is necessary. We need to give officers the
tools they need to fairly enforce the law. But this legislation paints
a target on the back of every police officer in America.
In Salt Lake City, we saw a 38 percent increase in homicides. At the
same time, Salt Lake cut $5.3 million from the police department's
budget. It should be no surprise that voluntary resignations doubled.
This bill will make good officers flee the profession when we need them
most.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats won't say this, but this bill simply defunds
the police. Not in Utah's Fourth District; not now; not ever.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply point out that this bill does
[[Page H1058]]
not--all the cities that we talked about, it does not mention any
cities.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act.
I started my career as the legal adviser to the Memphis Police
Department. There were many fine policemen, and most of them never used
a choke hold, never used their gun, and operated admirably. Some did
not.
The disproportionate share that African Americans have suffered from
killings by police shows we need to act. You can't think about George
Floyd being choked with a knee and killed for 8 minutes. You can't
think of Eric Garner being wrestled down like a prize trophy animal and
killed in Staten Island, or young Tamir Rice, shot without an officer
taking a second to think about it.
Mr. Speaker, these deaths require us to act. This is not defund the
police. This is reform the police and save human lives. We need to pass
this bill today. We should have passed it 40 years ago when I was a
police attorney. Pass it now.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Cammack).
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong opposition
to the efforts by you and your colleagues to defund our police.
This week we will be voting on H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act. This bill is named after a man who was murdered by a
police officer. The officer responsible should have never been allowed
to don a badge and act on behalf of the agency sworn to protect its
citizens. He should and is being held accountable.
Now, as a member of a first responder family, I can say definitively
on behalf of our officers that there is absolutely nothing, nothing
that a good cop hates more than a bad cop. And as the wife of a first
responder, this issue could not be more personal to me.
Mr. Speaker, my husband serves our local community as a firefighter
and a SWAT medic for our local sheriff's department. And next to me
here today, you see one of his SWAT vests.
This is the same vest that he wore for 14 hours while on a massive
manhunt for a man who had just been released from prison, who promptly
raped and killed his girlfriend.
It is the same vest that he wore while responding to a man who had
barricaded himself with weapons, threatening to kill his own children.
These are just some of the scenes that this vest and my husband have
seen, like so many of our LEOs. But the real threat here is not the
dangerous situations that my husband has seen in protecting his
community, it is the fact that this bill--and by extension, you, Mr.
Speaker--want to take this vest off my husband's back because, yes,
what this bill does is take this kind of equipment off the backs of our
men and women in uniform.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues who are considering voting
for this bill:
Are you waking up at 2 a.m. to respond to a gruesome murder?
Are you missing your children's birthday parties to respond to gang
shootings?
There is absolutely room for us to improve. There is absolutely room
and a necessity for us to do better. But the answer is not to defund
the police. It is not the answer. What this bill ultimately does is
defund the police.
You want a better trained, more responsive police force in your
hometown? Fully fund the police. You say this is a reform bill, and I
say that is BS.
Mr. Speaker, your own conference members have been advocating for the
defunding of our local police officers, calling them names that I
cannot and will not repeat here today. In fact, many of your members
have made it a top priority of their platforms.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, George Floyd died under the knee of a
police officer 302 days ago. In the time since then, 797 people--more
than 2\1/2\ every day--have died during encounters with law
enforcement.
Black Americans are 2\1/2\ times as likely as White Americans to be
killed by the police. Police use of force is now the sixth-leading
cause of death for young Black men in this country. This cannot
continue. It is time to address systemic racism in policing.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will begin to do that. It ends choke holds. It
will hold bad officers accountable, combat racial profiling, and
demilitarize police departments. This bill is about ensuring
accountability and restoring trust between law enforcement and their
communities. Both the police and the community deserve that and will
benefit from it.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor, and I urge my colleagues
to support it.
And I would say, there has been a lot of discussion about defunding
the police. The only party in this Chamber defunding the police are the
Republicans, who just voted against billions of dollars to support
local and State government, first responders, police officers. We
supported that. We are funding the police. They voted to defund it.
Mr. Speaker, this bill restores relationships between the police and
the community, and I urge its passage.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Gimenez).
Mr. GIMENEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
egregious, so-called police reform bill. The process used to craft this
bill is nonsense.
In a normal functioning Congress, the Speaker would bring together
Republicans and Democrats to discuss ways to push needed police
reforms. But in this dysfunctional Congress, we got a bill that strips
our frontline police officers from qualified immunity, that will weaken
and possibly destroy our communities' police forces.
Mr. Speaker, as mayor and sheriff of Miami-Dade County, and a former
SWAT medic myself, I was actually responsible for ensuring my community
was kept safe from lawlessness. I understand firsthand the importance
of qualified immunity for police officers to carry out their jobs.
Officers perform vital tasks requiring split-second decisions under
intense circumstances. Taking away qualified immunity will lead to
police officers not taking the decisive actions and rendering it
impossible for them to do their job. Without this security, officers
will resign and deplete our police force, leaving our communities--the
very ones who need a strong police force the most--less safe and
costing the lives of countless Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to vote against this
dangerous bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act and to say Black Lives Matter.
I rise for Charleena Lyles, Che Taylor, Manuel Ellis, Tommy Le, Tony
McDade, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Atatiana Jefferson,
Ezell Ford, Tanisha Anderson, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Philando
Castile, Gabriella Nevarez, Botham Jean.
I rise for all of our Black siblings who have been killed by law
enforcement, because there are far too many to say all of their names.
I rise for the Black Lives Matter protestors who were met with
aggression, tear gas, and force while White domestic terrorists were
met with none of these things.
I rise to answer the call of millions of people led by Black voices
who have taken to the streets demanding transformative change.
I rise because that change begins today by once again passing the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
{time} 1845
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Steube).
Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our Nation's law
enforcement. Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called
children of God.
Mr. Speaker, since last summer, members of law enforcement have faced
attacks and dangerous rhetoric, even from Members of this body. As
officers put their lives on the line to protect all of us, our
communities, and our families, we have seen nothing but
[[Page H1059]]
dangerous attempts from the left to defund, dismantle, and disband the
police even as we stand here today, surrounded by razor wire, the
National Guard and increased police presence to protect you, but you
don't want them to protect our citizens.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would end qualified immunity. Qualified
immunity is only applicable when they follow their training and
protocol and protects officers from being personally sued for official
actions. If we repeal qualified immunity, we will not find anyone
willing to serve as police officers because they can be sued out of
everything they own for doing their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, if that is not enough, this bill would threaten our
officers' physical safety by denying them protective gear and
equipment. The Democrats and radical left are going to defund and
dismantle departments and take away officers' liability protection for
doing their job. Then they are going to take away their physical
protection from harm. We will be lucky to have a police force in
America in 10 years.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).
Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud of our many officers in
Georgia's Sixth Congressional District, here in the Capitol, and those
nationwide who do all that they can to keep our families safe.
They have the trust of their communities and, as a result, are better
at ensuring everyone's safety. These officers know the people that they
serve. They see them as brothers, sisters, and neighbors. They serve
with honor and respect the dignity of every citizen.
This bill is about making sure that every officer and every
department is held to the same standard as has been set by the officers
in my own district.
Mr. Speaker, by passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, we
invest in our departments, end harmful profiling, and provide grants to
communities finding new and innovative ways to improve safety.
This bill ensures all of our police officers have the resources to
become our very best police officers, and that they are all working to
make sure that every single one of us is safer.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, whenever the left takes control of local
law enforcement, the result is predictable and catastrophic. They act
to defund the police, deliberately withhold police protection from law-
abiding shopkeepers and citizens, declare sanctuaries for criminal
illegal aliens, decline to charge criminals, and prevent law-abiding
citizens from protecting themselves.
Mr. Speaker, we are now suffering the result: skyrocketing homicides,
shootings, and other violent crimes, preying most of all upon the
decent citizens of our inner cities. Now, after their summer of love
and lawlessness, look at the results. Their storefronts are boarded up.
Their buildings are burned out. Their streets are increasingly
surrendered to the lawless.
Frankly, the Democrats in Congress that have applauded these policies
would not be my first choice to micromanage every police department
across our country as this bill does; just saying.
The ultimate target of the left is not isolated abuses by law
enforcement officers but, rather, law enforcement itself. As we can now
see, without law enforcement, there is no law.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times the other side says
that this bill will defund the police, it does not make it true.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, it would be an irresponsible policy to defund
the police. We are not for that.
Hear me. You can say it over and over and over again. It will be a
lie. No matter how well it serves your political purposes, it will be a
lie.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I want to
thank Representative Bass and members of the Congressional Black Caucus
for their leadership last year and now. I also want to thank my friend,
Chairman Nadler, and the Judiciary Committee for their hard work.
I am proud to be an original sponsor. If I thought this defunded the
police, I would not be for it. Now, that won't affect you and your
debate, I understand that, any more than it affected you in recognizing
the legitimacy of the Presidential election.
I am proud to be an original sponsor.
Mr. Speaker, in June of last year, the House passed this bill because
we recognized that something had to change. Change could not wait.
Change waited too long in the Jim Crow South. Change has waited too
long throughout this country--North, East, West, and South.
Mr. Speaker, when we mournfully say the names of George Floyd,
Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Philando Castile, Freddie
Gray, with a list that goes on and on and on and on, enough, my
colleagues, enough.
We must change the psychology of how we treat people. I don't mean
police alone. I mean all of us, but all of us don't carry guns. All of
us have not been given extraordinary authority by the public we serve.
Because we give certain people in this country extraordinary authority
to take our freedom away and, yes, to take our lives away, we must
ensure accountability for the use of that power, just as the voters
ought to ensure accountability for the power that they give to us.
When we hear about African American parents having to teach their
sons how to act during encounters with police so that they, too, don't
become victims, it is time for change. When we feel the energy of many
millions of Americans of every race, every faith, and every age taking
peacefully to the streets in protest against injustice, we know that
change must come now.
I know how you lament the use of violence. I saw that on January 6.
Mr. Speaker, peaceful demonstrations, Martin Luther King was locked
up. Rosa Parks was locked up. For a crime? Of course, Parks sat in the
front of the bus. That was illegal. As King said, an illegal law ought
not to be obeyed.
Mr. Speaker, they paid the consequences. They had the courage and
fortitude to do that.
That is why we took action last year, passing the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act. This legislation addresses police choke holds
like the kind that took George Floyd's life. Stand if you can justify
that action.
Mr. Speaker, it addresses no-knock warrants like the one that led to
the tragic and preventable death of Breonna Taylor. It would condition
Federal funding and resources to police departments on ending racial
profiling. Content of character, did we not learn that lesson? It is
not the color of your skin, the cut of the cloth you wear, or the part
in your hair.
Mr. Speaker, we ask them to follow best practices with that power and
authority we have given them, best practices in police training that
help ensure the rights of those who encounter police, as well as the
safety of all of us.
Mr. Speaker, this bill also brings justice to victims and their
families by facilitating, under appropriate circumstances, their
ability to seek redress of grievances.
This bill is not only intended to protect people who encounter the
police, but it is meant to help keep police safe as well, to help them
do the difficult job of keeping their communities safe.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a Member of this body, I think I can safely
say, who has attended more frequently the annual National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund ceremony. I am local, but I dare say
that no Member in this body has attended that more frequently, been
more supportive of law enforcement, or been more supportive of my local
sheriffs and police departments. They are critically important. Of
course, we don't want to defund them. We have to have a safe society if
democracy is going to prevail. That is why we have law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard from so many law enforcement officials who
are deeply concerned about misconduct and racial bias in policing, just
as each one of us ought to be concerned about a politician who commits
a crime. Why? It reflects on all of us. All of those politicians are
crooks. Somebody out there is saying amen.
That is why this is important, because there are so many hundreds of
thousands of honest, hardworking, courageous, dedicated police
officers, sheriffs, and constables in this country.
[[Page H1060]]
Mr. Speaker, most police officers are good and decent men and women,
serving with honor. They want to know that their ranks are free from
those who would apply bias and sow mistrust that endangers their and
their colleagues' safety. This is just the beginning of a larger effort
to reform policing, which will require the Senate and White House to
work with us to ensure that victims of misconduct and their families
get the justice they deserve, while police departments have the
support, the funding, if you will, they need to keep our communities
safe.
Mr. Speaker, sadly, when we passed this bill last year, the
Republican-controlled Senate refused even to consider it. They were in
charge. They put no bill of their own on the floor. I apologize. I
retract that. Mr. Jordan is correct.
Now, however, with this Democratic Senate majority, I hope I can see
action, work with Senator Scott, and come to a resolution, because this
problem will not go away if we don't help it. We will not save lives if
we don't act.
Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a top priority for Senate Democrats,
as well as for President Biden and Vice President Harris. So, I hope
that we will not only see the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act pass
the House today but also be signed into law this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, this is a necessary bill to respond to a crisis
throughout our country, certainly not by every member of law
enforcement, but by the minority of law enforcement officers, just as
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are a credit to the service in
this House, not all, but the overwhelming majority.
Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill. Let's act for justice.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair and not to each other.
{time} 1900
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the majority leader just said: Enough, my colleagues,
enough.
I couldn't agree more.
Last summer, Democrats called for unrest in the streets. They raised
bail money for rioters. They called antifa a myth. They voted and
pushed for defunding the police all across this country.
Guess what? When you call for unrest in the streets while there is
unrest in the streets, guess what happens?
You get more unrest in the streets.
When you raise money to bail out rioters, guess what happens?
You get more rioters.
When you call antifa a myth, guess what happens?
You get more attacks on property and on people.
Guess what also happens when you call for defunding the police?
You get more crime.
And when you fail to condemn violence--all violence, whether it
happens on January 6 or last summer--you get more violence.
Everyone understands that. Everyone should understand that, but it
seems Democrats don't.
We had a bill in the House, just like Senator Scott's bill, and
Representative Stauber was the sponsor. Last year, when we had a
markup, we offered 12 amendments in committee. They wouldn't take any
of them. Some of the amendments, the Democrats actually supported them.
But nope, nope, got to be this bill.
They didn't want to work with us to deal with the real concern,
because we all know what happened to Mr. Floyd was as wrong as wrong
could be. We were willing to work, but, no, they wouldn't take any of
our amendments and said the things they said last summer. We should
work together on this, but they don't want to. They don't want to do
it.
They want their own bill. They don't want Republicans to vote for it.
They want to play politics. We would actually like to solve the
problem. We would actually like to solve the problem.
You know what else happens when you call for defunding the police?
The police retire. There is a 72 percent increase in retirement of
police officers in New York City alone. Think of what it is like around
the country. That is what happens when you send the message that
Democrats sent all last summer. It is wrong. We shouldn't stand for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, Officer Tiffany-Victoria Enriquez, Officer
Kaulike Kalama, Sheriff Sheldon Gordon Whiteman, Officer Katherine Mary
Thyne, I could go on and on 113 times with the names of law enforcement
officers who died in the line of duty, who were killed last year in
2020--113.
And we are on the floor of the House of Representatives with a bill
gutting the qualified immunity that helps protect our law enforcement
officers without so much as a hearing, without so much as coming back
to talk to us and work with us since last June.
Why?
Because this is all political. This is all political.
We talk about defunding. I am from Austin, Texas; $150 million cut
from the police budget there.
And what did my Democrat colleagues do last Friday?
Jammed through $500 billion for State and local governments, funding
the very Democratic cities that are gutting our law enforcement
officers, taking away what they need to be able to exist.
And with what happened in Austin, a 50 percent increase in murder
rate. We lost the greatest cadet class we had.
This bill is a sham. We should oppose it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times Republicans may say
the contrary, Democrats have never called for defunding the police.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
New York (Mr. Jeffries).
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, we respect every single officer who has
died in the line of duty.
The question is: Why don't you respect those Black and Latino
individuals who were shot in the back, choked to death, beaten nearly
unconscious, or have a knee to the neck, strangling the life out of
them for 8 minutes and 46 seconds? Why don't you respect them?
That is what the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is all about.
We respect police officers, those who protect and serve; but we have
a challenge with police violence, police brutality. The police abuse of
force cannot be denied, video after video after video. Don't believe
us, believe your own eyes.
Thirty years ago, Rodney King was beaten on this very day, and we
thought it would be different. But 30 years later, nothing has changed
in terms of accountability and reining in those officers who cross the
line.
It is time to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, and do
it now.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, this bill ignores the harm that anti-law
enforcement rhetoric and unchecked violence have inflicted on our
communities and our police.
Since last year, we have seen businesses and communities terrorized,
burned, and looted by criminal gangs and thugs, while some elected
officials justified the violence, called for defunding the police, and
moved to tie the hands of law enforcement. In essence, lawlessness
prevailed and accountability failed. This legislation doubles down on
that failed policy.
In my home State of Wisconsin, we watched city officials in Madison,
Kenosha, and Milwaukee stand by as violent rioters destroyed property,
monuments, shops, and livelihoods. Sheriffs in my home State tell me
they are having significant retention and recruiting issues. This will
only exacerbate that. It is a back door to the misguided defund the
police efforts. Defunding the police does not make the police safer.
Mr. Speaker, this bill empowers criminals, while stripping cops of
the tools they need to do their jobs and due process guaranteed to them
by the Constitution. It exposes law enforcement officers and their
families to potential retribution by criminals.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).
Ms. OMAR. Mr. Speaker, I, like so many in my community of
Minneapolis, are still traumatized. I watched horrified for 8 minutes
and 46 seconds as George Floyd's life was
[[Page H1061]]
taken from him, another innocent Black man murdered by the police in
our community.
Time and time again, we have witnessed the people who are sworn to
protect our communities abuse their power. My city is not an outlier,
but, rather, an example of the inequalities our country has struggled
with for centuries. Brutality against unarmed Black men and women is
not a new phenomenon.
Today, we find ourselves at a crossroad. Will we have the moral
courage to pursue justice and secure meaningful change? Or will we
succumb to this moment?
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again: about to vote on a divisive bill being
pushed through by the majority without any Republican input. Disguised
as accountability, this bill hinders law enforcement's ability to do
their jobs, limits the readiness of law enforcement, and demonizes an
entire profession for the actions of a few.
A bill from my Minnesota colleague, Mr. Stauber, a former police
officer himself, accomplishes many of the aims of this bill before us
today, and has bipartisan support from the stakeholders involved; but
Democrats rejected it, picking partisanship over real reform to help
and improve law enforcement.
We do not deny there is work to be done, but the path to getting it
done is working together to ensure that law enforcement developed the
necessary tools to keep our communities safe and protect the rights of
people they serve.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to work on a
bill that will really help law enforcement and the citizens.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, any man's death diminishes me. We will never
forget, the world will never forget, as we watched as a police officer
knelt on George Floyd's neck for more than 8 minutes.
George Floyd cried out for his mother, saying ``Mama, mama, mama,
mama, mama, mama, mama, I can't breathe. I love you. Tell my kids I
love them. I am dead.''
As he was murdered by an officer sworn to protect and serve,
Americans of all races and backgrounds flooded the streets all across
this Nation, demanding long overdue accountability so that no one has
to live in fear of the police.
They demanded that we recognize George Floyd's death and the deaths
of so many others at the hands of the police. These killings have left
the Black community and, much more importantly, our entire community
traumatized and scared. Wounds cannot heal without accountability.
This is not an anti-police bill. The George Floyd Justice in Policing
Act is for Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, Elijah McClain, and
so many more.
Any man's death diminishes me.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R.
1280 and defunding the police.
When vandalism and violence plagued cities across the country last
summer, our law enforcement officers were the thin blue line protecting
us. The violence reached communities from New York City to Portland. It
even hit places in my district, and we saw our local law enforcement
act heroically.
Unfortunately, as both the son and father of law enforcement
officials, this bill is a step in the wrong direction. The bill
substantially reduces due process for police officers, restricts access
to needed equipment, and makes it more difficult to get critical
funding.
Our law enforcement officers need more funding, not less. More
funding will help our officers get additional training to deescalate
conflicts and get more equipment to keep all parties safe. Instead of
focusing on how we can help the police build trust in the communities,
this bill focuses on how we can take from the police.
Clearly, the bill is designed to satisfy those that seek to defund
and dismantle the police. None of this bill serves to build trust
between law enforcement and their communities. Like every occupation,
law enforcement has bad apples that must be held accountable.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York, the
distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding and for
his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor.
I commend Congresswoman Karen Bass for her great leadership in this
important legislation.
Madam Speaker, nearly 1 year ago, George Floyd gasped his last words,
``I can't breathe,'' and ignited a nationwide reckoning on the racial
injustice and police brutality in America.
Americans from every corner of the country took to the streets to
peacefully protest violence against Black Americans: waving Black Lives
Matter flags, chanting the names of the murdered, repeating George
Floyd's dying words, ``I can't breathe.'' They turned their agony into
action.
But, tragically, despite these mass protests, the injustice, the
killing, continues. Those protests were global. They were all over the
world.
Here, as Members of Congress, and as Americans, we cannot accept this
epidemic of injustice. We cannot stay silent when our most vulnerable
and historically marginalized communities--people of color, those
living in poverty, Americans with disabilities--are being targeted and
sometimes killed.
That is why today the House will again pass the George Floyd Justice
in Policing Act and send it to the Senate and the President's desk, so
that it can finally become the law of the land.
{time} 1915
I salute Congresswoman Karen Bass, who has been relentless,
persistent, and absolutely courageous in her leadership on this
legislation. I thank the Congressional Black Caucus and its
chairperson, Joyce Beatty; and Judiciary chair, Jerry Nadler.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act fundamentally transforms the
culture of policing with strong, unprecedented reform. This legislation
will not erase centuries of systemic racism and excessive policing in
America. It will not bring back George Floyd, Breonna Taylor--say her
name, Breonna Taylor--Ahmaud Arbery, or the countless other men and
women who died or were senselessly injured. But it will take a
tremendous step forward to stop the violence, stem the suffering, and
start to build a healthier and better relationship between law
enforcement and communities that they protect.
All of us here salute and are profoundly grateful for our law
enforcement heroes. I grew up in a public service family. My father, my
whole life at home, was the mayor of Baltimore. My brother was mayor
later, Thomas D'Alesandro, in Baltimore. They had a motto about the
police: Be true to the men in blue.
Of course, this was a long time ago. Be true to the men in blue. I
was raised with that respect.
But then, prayerfully, these people, our men and women--now men and
women--in uniform, whether they are police or fire, but addressing
police here, our first responders left home when they left to go to
work, not knowing, and their families not knowing, if they would return
home because they were risking their lives to save lives and to protect
all of us. So it was with great prayerful gratitude to most of the men
and women in blue that we, sadly, have to say that our appreciation for
them cannot lapse into apathy or acceptance of actions that are
fundamentally incompatible with the purpose of policing.
Of course, there is not anyone on our side of the aisle who has
advocated any policy in this body to defund the police, contrary to
misrepresentations that are coming forth. All of us here, again, salute
and are profoundly grateful for our law enforcement heroes.
As the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
writes:
The passage of this act is paramount in achieving the
fundamental principle of a police force that ``protects and
serves'' every
[[Page H1062]]
citizen of their community with fairness, accountability, and
transparency in their actions.
The Democratic Congress, together with the Biden-Harris
administration, is committed to not only ensuring that this legislation
becomes law, but to take further action to end violence and advance
justice in America. Let us ensure that the passage of the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act is the first of many steps in this direction.
The family of George Floyd, who came here when the bill was being
reviewed by Chairman Nadler's committee, asked me: Madam Speaker, will
you name this bill for our brother?
His brother asked that question. The gentleman remembers that day. We
couldn't be in the committee room because of COVID.
I said: Only if you think it is worthy of your brother.
I think of George Floyd at least once a day and sometimes more.
Do you know why?
Not just because of the sadness of it all, but I think of him because
they tell us that, in order to be safe from COVID, we must wash our
hands for 20 seconds. So as I'm washing my hands for 20 seconds, after
about 8 or 9 seconds, I am thinking that this is taking forever; I
can't do this for 20 seconds; it takes too long. Then I think of George
Floyd--8 minutes and 46 seconds. It is a long time. It is a long time,
as Congresswoman Dean said, calling out for his mother and extending
love to his family.
Let us ensure that George's brother, Philonise, when he said that
George's name means something; and that as his daughter, Gianna, said,
``Daddy changed the world,'' with this legislation, let us take an
important step in changing the world for George's family, for all
communities of color, for all Americans, and for the whole world.
Madam Speaker, I urge a strong bipartisan vote in the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act, and I thank Karen Bass, again, for her
leadership.
Madam Speaker, nearly one year ago, George Floyd gasped his last
words--``I can't breathe''--and ignited a nationwide reckoning on the
racial injustice and police brutality in America.
Americans from every corner of the country took to the streets to
peacefully protest violence against Black Americans: waving Black Lives
Matter flags, chanting the names of the murdered, repeating George
Floyd's dying words.
They turned their agony into action, but tragically, despite these
mass protests, the injustice--the killing--continues.
Last year, 1,127 people were killed by police, far more than in the
year before. In the months following George Floyd's murder, 645 people
were killed--and hundreds more were attacked and assaulted, including
Jacob Blake: shot seven times in the back in front of his three
children.
As George Floyd's brother Philonise recently said, ``As a Black man
in the United States, I want to be able to go outside and protest,
because at this time, I don't know who is going to survive or not.''
As Members of Congress and as Americans, we cannot accept this
epidemic of injustice. We cannot stay silent, when our most vulnerable
and historically marginalized communities--people of color, those
living in poverty, Americans with disabilities--are being targeted and
killed.
That is why, today, the House will again pass the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act--and send it to the Senate and the President's
desk, so that it can finally become law.
I salute Congresswoman Karen Bass, who has been relentless,
persistent and absolutely courageous in her leadership on this
legislation. Thank you to the CBC and Chair Joyce Beatty, and Judiciary
Chair Jerry Nadler.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act fundamentally transforms the
culture of policing with strong, unprecedented reforms, including:
banning chokeholds; stopping no-knock warrants; ending the court-
created qualified immunity doctrine; combating racial profiling; and
establishing strong new standards and protections to prevent and combat
police misconduct.
This legislation will not erase centuries of systemic racism and
excessive policing in America.
It will not bring back George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery or
the countless other men and women who died or were senselessly injured.
But it will take a tremendous step forward to stop the violence, stem
the suffering and start to build a healthier, better relationship
between law enforcement and the communities that they protect.
All of us here salute and are profoundly grateful for our law
enforcement heroes. But our appreciation cannot lapse into apathy or
acceptance of actions that are fundamentally incompatible with the
purpose of policing.
As the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
writes, ``The passage of this act is paramount in achieving the
fundamental principle of a police force that `protects and serves'
every citizen of their community, with fairness, accountability and
transparency in their actions.''
The Democratic Congress, together with the Biden-Harris
Administration, is committed to not only ensuring that this legislation
becomes law--but to taking further action to end violence and advance
justice in America.
Let us ensure that the passage of the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act is the first of many steps in this mission.
And let us ensure that, as George's brother said, ``George's name
means something''; and that, as his daughter Gianna said, ``Daddy
changed the world.''
With this legislation, let us take a small step to ``changing the
world''--for George's family, for all communities of color, and for all
Americans.
With that, I urge a strong, bipartisan vote for the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I will just point out that the Speaker of
the House said we should respect the police, but the Speaker of the
House named an individual to conduct a review of the breach of the
Capitol on January 6, and that individual has insulted the very police
who protect us.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs.
Greene).
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
1280.
Do you know what is terrifying to the American people?
Watching Democrats try to pass a defund the police bill; the same
Democrats who cheered on and supported riots that burned American
cities, and the same Democrats who shared Minnesota Freedom Fund bail
bond links supporting criminals and helping them get out of jail.
This bill is atrocious. Shame on all of you. This hurts our police
officers.
April 29, 2010, my friend, Jonathan Edwards, was shot in the line of
duty. If that happened today and this bill is passed, getting rid of
qualified immunity allows the criminal who shot him to be able to sue
him simply because they are upset that they were arrested.
This same bill will also allow that criminal who shot him to be able
to put his name on a national hit list that will be made public,
whether police officers are found to have done wrong or not.
This is shameful.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Omar). Members are reminded to direct
remarks to the Chair and not each other.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is a critical
step towards ensuring a country where Black people are treated as equal
citizens, not just in theory, but in real life. This bill weaves into
our laws the truism that Black Lives Matter. This bill will help build
trust between law enforcement and the communities that they are sworn
to protect and serve.
``Equal Justice Under the Law'' may be etched atop the entrance to
this Nation's highest court, but it is not a privilege enjoyed by each
of us. We must act now to ensure that we protect the humanity of every
person. Stand up for the principle of equal justice for all.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
vote ``yes'' for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cline).
Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, the death of George Floyd last year led to
communities across the Nation to come together to speak out against
injustices, call for additional accountability and transparency in
policing, and advocate for solutions that could move us forward
together as a nation.
But instead of working with Republicans to find a bipartisan
solution, the Democrat majority has, once again, written a partisan
bill to ram through the House with no committee markup,
[[Page H1063]]
no open amendments, and no meaningful bipartisan collaboration. That is
not what the American people sent us here to do.
This legislation will impede the ability of good police officers to
do their jobs effectively and uphold the rule of law. Our dedicated
police officers who serve our communities work tirelessly to ensure
that lawlessness does not prevail in our streets and neighborhoods.
The effect of this bill on law enforcement is to levy unfunded
mandates on local governments, force law enforcement to leave the
profession, and, yes, defund the police.
Madam Speaker, as you said, defund the police is not a slogan, but a
policy demand.
Madam Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this, and I urge my colleagues
to vote ``no.''
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from
California, Karen Bass, for her leadership; as well as the
Congressional Black Caucus for always speaking truth to power.
Madam Speaker, today we take a stride towards ending racism in
policing. But this is just the beginning. We must recognize that
systemic racism extends well beyond law enforcement. Systemic racism is
the way governments have deliberately impoverished Black families, then
condition necessary medical care on our ability to pay.
It is the way we fund our public schools, a property tax-based system
that concentrates tens of billions more dollars in White communities
than in Black and Brown communities.
In America, it is the way we run our elections, purging Black voters,
especially in Southern States, from the rolls and closing the polls in
Black neighborhoods. We can't stop until we have eradicated systemic
racism in all of its forms.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Madam Speaker, the insidious and false pretext for this legislation
endangers and ends lives. The bill rests on a false premise and
promotes a false narrative that police are racists and use their power
to advance racist ends. This narrative is a false and despicable
slander.
Police officers do not leave their loved ones and risk their own
lives every shift to oppress or discriminate. They do it to serve. They
do it without fanfare and for little pay, and they have come to
anticipate abuse in place of the respect that they deserve. They do it
to save lives.
But the reckless ``defund the police'' rhetoric behind this
legislation is forcing police to retreat and to leave the vulnerable at
the mercy of those who prey upon them.
Madam Speaker, you should run from that rhetoric, as you are. Madam
Speaker, you called the police ``rotten to the root'' and called for it
to be ``dismantled.''
That rhetoric is killing people. Please stop the political games.
Stop slandering law enforcement, and stop endangering our communities.
Back the blue.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, no matter how many times Republicans say
that this bill defunds the police, it doesn't change the fact that it
does not defund the police.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Missouri (Ms. Bush).
Ms. BUSH. Madam Speaker, first of all, we shouldn't be talking about
good police and bad police. There should just be police who are doing
their job to serve and protect the people. So let's make that clear.
There is no such thing as good police. There is no good nursing. When
you go get food, you don't go look for: This place has a good chef;
this one has the bad chef; I am going to go where the bad chef is.
We don't need this good police/bad police. We need police if we are
going to have police. But I will move on.
Madam Speaker, St. Louis and I rise on behalf of the more than 788
people who have been killed by law enforcement over the last year. We
rise 30 years to the day after the ruthless beating of Rodney King. We
rise in honor of Breonna Taylor, who was brutally gunned down by police
in her home last March. We rise for George Floyd and all those who have
been killed by police since his torture and murder.
Those names: William Burgess, Mark Brewer, Dion Johnson, Tony McDade,
Rayshard Brooks, Modesto Reyes, Ruben Smith, David McAtee, Kamal
Flowers, Robert Harris, Joseph Denton, Vincent Truitt, Sincere Pierce,
Jeremy Southern, Angelo Crooms, and Amir Johnson.
Madam Speaker, St. Louis and I rise on behalf of the more than 788
people who have been killed by law enforcement over the last year. We
rise 30 years to the day after the ruthless beating of Rodney King. We
rise in honor of Breonna Taylor who was brutally gunned down by police
in her home last March.
We rise for George Floyd and all those who've been killed by police
since his torture and murder:
1. William Burgess III
2. Mark Brewer
3. Dion Johnson
4. Tony McDade
5. Rayshard Brooks
6. Modesto Reyes
7. Ruben Smith III
8. Jarvis Sullivan
9. David McAtee
10. Kamal Flowers
11. Michael Thomas
12. Robert Harris
13. Rasheed Moorman
14. Ky Johnson
15. Kevan Ruffin
16. Joseph Denton
17. The more than 100 people whose names have been withheld
by police
18. Erroll Johnson
19. Malik Canty
20. Richard Price
21. Hakim Littleton
22. Vincent Truitt
23. Aaron Hudson
24. Darius Washington
25. Vincent Harris
26. Jeremy Southern
27. David Brooks Jr.
28. Darrien Walker
29. Ashton Broussard
30. Amir Johnson
31. Julian Lewis
32. Rafael Minniefield
33. Kendrell Watkins
34. Anthony McClain
35. Adrian Roberts
36. Trayford Pellerin
37. Damian Daniels
38. Michael Harris
39. Name withheld by police
40. Robert Jackson
41. Dijon Kizzee
42. Deon Kay
43. Steven D. Smith
44. Major Carvel Baldwin
45. Steve Gilbert
46. Jonathan Darsaw
47. Robert Coleman
48. Caine Van Pelt
49. Darrell Zemault Sr.
50. Aloysius Keaton
51. Charles Eric Moses Jr.
52. Dearian Bell
53. Kurt Reinhold
54. Salaythis Melvin
55. Willie Shropshire Jr.
56. DeMarco Riley
57. Jonathan Price
58. Tyran Dent
59. Momodou Lamin Sisay
60. Stanley Cochran
61. Anthony Jones
62. Kevin Carr
63. Brandon Gardner
64. Donald Ward
65. Terron Jammal Boone
66. Skyleur Young
67. Dana Mitchell Young Jr.
68. Fred Williams III
69. Akbar Muhammad Eaddy
70. Dominique Mulkey
71. Marcellis Stinnette
72. Rodney Arnez Barnes
73. Gregory Jackson
74. Mark Matthew Bender
75. Ennice ``Lil Rocc'' Ross Jr.
76. Jakerion Shmond Jackson
77. Walter Wallace Jr.
78. Maurice Parker
79. Kevin Peterson Jr.
80. Name withheld by police
81. Justin Reed
82. Reginald Alexander Jr.
83. Tutuila Pine Koonwaiyou
84. Fredrick Cox Jr.
85. Rodney Eubanks
86. Brandon Milburn
87. Sincere Pierce
88. Angelo ``AJ'' Crooms
89. Tracey Leon McKinney
90. Name withheld by police
91. Shane K. Jones
92. Shawn Lequin Braddy
93. Javon Brice
94. Kenneth Jones
95. Rodney Applewhite
96. Rondell Goppy
97. Ellis Frye Jr.
98. Terrell Mitchell
99. Mickee McArthur
[[Page H1064]]
100. James David Hawley
101. Julius Paye Kehyei
102. Kevin Fox
103. Dominique Harris
104. Andre K. Sterling
105. Casey Christopher Goodson Jr.
106. Kwamaine O'Neal
107. Donald Edwin Saunders
108. Joshua Feast
109. Bennie Edwards
110. Charles E. Jones
111. Jeremy Maurice Daniels
112. Larry Taylor
113. Andre Maurice Hill
114. Sheikh Mustafa Davis
115. Shamar Ogman
116. Marquavious Rashod Parks
117. Larry Hamm
118. Jaquan Haynes
119. Jason Cooper
120. Dolal ldd
121. Carl Dorsey III
122. Tre-Kedrian Tyquan White
123. La Garion Smith
124. Vincent Belmonte
125. Robert ``Lil Rob'' Howard
126. Matthew Oxendine
127. Jason Nightengale
128. Patrick Warren Sr.
129. Heba Momtaz Alazhari
130. Lymond Maurice Moses
131. Kershawn Geiger
132. Zonterious Johnson
133. Christopher Harris
134. Eusi Malik Kater Jr.
135. Tyree Kajawn Rogers
136. Roger D. Hipskind
137. Karl Walker
138. Marvon Payton Jr.
139. Chazz Hailey
140. Patches Vojon Holmes Jr.
141. Treyh Webster
142. Dontae Green
143. Andrew Hogan
144. Dustin Demaurean Powell
145. Gregory Taylor
146. Joe Louis Castillanos
147. Robert Avitia
148. John Alvarado
149. Name withheld by police
150. Rommel Mendoza
151. Jorge Gomez
152. Sean Monterrosa
153. Eric Anthony Galvan
154. Erik Salgado
155. Juan Carlos Alvarez
156. Anthony Angel Armenta
157. Andres Guardado
158. Michael Kristopher Torres
159. Kevin Pulido
160. Martin Humberto Sanchez Fregoso
161. Leonardo Hurtado Ibarra
162. Nick Costales
163. James ``Jay'' Porter Garcia
164. Axel Perez
165. Carlos Baires
166. Name withheld by police
167. Antonio Mancinone
168. Julio Jaramillo
169. Cristhian Eliud Ramos-Murillo
170. Julio Cesar Virula
171. Ray Adrian Lara
172. Gabriel Salinas
173. Ramon Timothy Lopez
174. Roberto Hernandez Jr.
175. Name withheld by police
176. Ryan Shane Hinojo
177. Americo C. Reyes Jr.
178. Jose Vallejos
179. Name withheld by police
180. Daniel Rivera
181. Ronnie Kong
182. Jose Manuel Castro
183. Santos Anthony Villegas
184. Everardo Gonzalez Santana
185. Marco Antonio Sigala Jr.
186. Samuel Mata
187. Cesar Sanchez Ruiz
188. Name withheld by police
189. Jesus Alvarez Pulido
190. Julio Cesar Moran-Ruiz
191. Jesse David Nava
192. Miguel Vega
193. Marco Antonio Benito
194. Christopher Escobedo
195. Ricardo Miguel Munoz
196. Name withheld by police
197. Victor Sanchez
198. Angel Benitez
199. Isaiah Pama
200. Name withheld by police
201. Jason Rodriguez
202. Diego Eguino-Alcala
203. Juan Adrian Garcia
204. Nick Burgos
205. Douglas Sanchez
206. Cesar Vargas
207. Matthew Montoya
208. Jose Marcos Ramirez
209. Miguel A. Nevarez Jr.
210. Yoel Arnaldo Mejia Santel
211. Edwin Morales
212. Alberto Rivas
213. Jose Alfredo Castro-Gutierrez
214. Emmett Cocreham
215. George Cocreham
216. Francisco Danny Flores
217. Daniel Angel Villalobos-Baldovinos
218. Marc Nevarez
219. Name withheld by police
220. Charles Robert Arviso
221. Justin Esqueda
222. Rodolfo ``Rudy'' Martinez-Cortez
223. Luis Robert Zaragoza Barbosa
224. Augustine Morales
225. Pedro Martinez
226. Anthony Arias
227. Stavian Rodriguez
228. Nicolas Segura
229. Michael Anthony Pena
230. Adam Lee Mendez
231. Dolores Hernandez
232. Christian Juarez
233. Evelia Rivera
234. Luis Manuel Vasquez Gomez
235. Reno E. Casanova
236. Andrew Mansilla
237. Leonel Salinas
238. Paul Peraza
239. Christopher Cuevas
240. Name withheld by police
241. Jesus Perez
242. Bryan Cruz-Soto
243. Rodolfo Caraballo Moreno
244. Frank Gonzales
245. David Tovar Jr.
246. Felix Santos
247. Omar Felix Cueva
248. Josue Drumond-Cruz
249. Edwin Adan Velasquez
250. Juan Carlos Pena-Noda
251. Erick Mejia
252. Henry Barnes Jr.
253. Brandon R. Laducer
254. Antonio Black Bear
255. Nicholas Morales-Bessannia
256. Cole F. Stump
257. Trifton Stacy Wacoche
258. Ernie Teddy Serrano
259. Caillen Paoakea Gentzler
260. Peter K. England
261. Christian Hall
262. Reymar Gagarin
263. John A. Vik
264. Gary P. Dorton
265. Justin Mink
266. Name withheld by police
267. Kenneth Bennett
268. Alexander Scott
269. Name withheld by police
270. James Pharr
271. Gerard John
272. Ray Lee Jim
273. Gregory Lee Turnure
274. Donald L. Hunter
275. Jeffrey McClure
276. Michael Seltzer
277. Richard L. Mason
278. Phillip Dibenedetto
279. Jerry M. Bethel
280. Tiffany T. Bingham
281. Brandeis Codde
282. Name withheld by police
283. David Guillen
284. Jason James Kruzic
285. Robert Wenman
286. Matthew L. Fox
287. Julie Colon
288. Louis Lane
289. Lance Bowman
290. Kevin Lee Catlett
291. Name withheld by police
292. Doug Diamond
293. Rodney Liveringhouse
294. Name withheld by police
295. Name withheld by police
296. Taylor Christian Warner aka Tylor Warner
297. Joey Hoffman
298. Eduardo Martinez
299. Kanavis Dujuan Glass
300. Daniel Matheson
301. Michael Joseph Culbertson
302. Marcos Reyes
303. Rodney Morrison
304. Arlan Kaleb Schultz
305. Glynn Farse Young
306. Antwane Burrise
307. Name withheld by police
308. Malcolm Comeaux
309. Grant King
310. David Angulo
311. Deborah White
312. Name withheld by police
313. Name withheld by police
314. Dane Norris
315. Samuel Solomon Cochran Jr.
316. Jacob Wilbur Wright
317. Jason Matthew Henke
318. Winston Joseph Latour Ill
319. Giovanni Cedano-Amaro
320. Juan Rene Hummel Jr.
321. Gary Hardy Jr.
322. Colin E. Davis
323. William Sears
324. Ronald Pope
325. Cryus D. Carpenter
326. Name withheld by police
327. Melissa Halda
328. Christopher Lawings
329. Andrew S. Gwynn
330. Name withheld by police
331. Name withheld by police
332. Anthony Budduke
333. Name withheld by police
334. Donald Anderson
335. Robert Land
336. Lyana Gilmore
337. Name withheld by police
338. Name withheld by police
339. Donald Timothy Miller
340. Name withheld by police
341. Fred John Henry Arcera
342. Name withheld by police
343. Trevor Edwards
344. Ronald Stuart Chipman
345. Name withheld by police
346. Hasani Best
347. Christopher Walker
348. Mark Dawson Jr.
349. Gearil Leonard Williams
350. Corey Lee Cutler
351. Name withheld by police
352. Charles Garland
353. Casper Brown
354. Kurt Phelps
355. Arthur Zalman Ferrel
356. Fernando Napoles
357. Shaon Jermy Ochea Walker
358. Verlon Billy Stiles
359. Refugio Reynaldo Olivo
360. Matthew Patton
361. Samuel Herrera Jr.
362. Robert Samuel Craig Lusk
[[Page H1065]]
363. Joshua Clayton Brant
364. Name withheld by police
365. Derek Cooper
366. Julia Anne Moss
367. Randy Fedorchuk
368. Jessie A. Hudnall
369. Name withheld by police
370. James Lucachevitz
371. Kirby Joseph Michael Hengel
372. Name withheld by police
373. Mickel Erich Lewis Sr.
374. John Aycoth
375. Austin Manzano
376. Christopher Ulmer
377. Andrew A. Williams
378. Chester McDonald
379. Justin Caldwell
380. Ariel Esau Lujan
381. Shawn Campbell
382. Name withheld by police
383. Name withheld by police
384. Jason Edward Galliart
385. Name withheld by police
386. Name withheld by police
387. Name withheld by police
388. Ethan Freeman
389. Paul Sulkowski
390. Joey Hoffman
391. Name withheld by police
392. Name withheld by police
393. Steven Belville
394. Keith Beecroft
395. Name withheld by police
396. Michael Nichols
397. Name withheld by police
398. Name withheld by police
399. John Lipski
400. Name withheld by police
401. Bruce Allan Shumaker
402. Michael K. Nelson
403. Clifton Gorman Spencer
404. Brandon Keith Davis
405. Matthew Daniel Johnston
406. Jason S. Cline
407. Thomas Celona
408. Caleb Slay
409. Name withheld by police
410. Jason Neo Bourne
411. Name withheld by police
412. John Wesley Seymour
413. Name withheld by police
414. Name withheld by police
415. Name withheld by police
416. Javier Magana
417. David Viveros
418. Steven Campos
419. Rodriguez Duandre Pam
420. Terry David Fox
421. Name withheld by police
422. Ronny Dunning
423. Daniel David Reyes
424. Vusumuzi Kunene
425. Daron Jones
426. Chris Mellon
427. Eric Lyn Clark
428. Henry Frankowski
429. Name withheld by police
430. Name withheld by police
431. Name withheld by police
432. Christina Markwell
433. Name withheld by police
434. Terrell Smith
435. Duane Scott Murray
436. Peter Russell
437. Jordan D. Patterson
438. Name withheld by police
439. Douglas Hatfield
440. Name withheld by police
441. Nicholas Cory Kausshen
442. Name withheld by police
443. Lorenzo Aguilar
444. Name withheld by police
445. Alonzo Leroy Landy
446. Cory Donell Truxillo
447. Name withheld by police
448. Maurice Jackson
449. Larry Eugene Boyd
450. Nancy King
451. Randy Ward
452. Name withheld by police
453. Estavon Dominic Elioff
454. Name withheld by police
455. Thomas Reeder III
456. Nathaniel Sironen
457. Brad Tyler Masters
458. Joseph R. Crawford
459. Whitney J. Crawley
460. Kurtis Kay Frevert
461. Earl Robert Caperton
462. Name withheld by police
463. Name withheld by police
464. Name withheld by police
465. Joseph Evans
466. Name withheld by police
467. Johnny Bolton
468. Tyquarn Graves
469. Nicholas Ellingson
470. Name withheld by police
471. Name withheld by police
472. Daniel Russell
473. Name withheld by police
474. Mark Clermont
475. Michael Brandon Joyner
476. Name withheld by police
477. Helen Jones
478. Name withheld by police
479. Name withheld by police
480. Alaina Burns
481. Shyheed Robert Boyd
482. Samuel Lorenzo
483. Jeffrey Marvin
484. Name withheld by police
485. Isaac Matheney
486. Name withheld by police
487. Micahel Romo
488. Name withheld by police
489. Jose Guzman
490. Alexander Gonzales
491. Benicio Vasquez
492. Jacob Ryan McDuff
493. Kwamena Ocran
494. Charles Edward Williams
495. Paul Bolden
496. Xzavier D. Hill
497. Mark Bivins
498. Allen Mirzayan
499. Joseph W. Howell
500. Name withheld by police
501. Antonio Carbajal
502. Gary Rodriguez Jr.
503. Name withheld by police
504. Reginald Johnson
505. Name withheld by police
506. Name withheld by police
507. Daniel Young
508. Daniel Canales Jr.
509. Robert Laudell Bull
510. Bradley Alexander Lewis
511. Name withheld by police
512. Name withheld by police
513. Harmony Wolfgram
514. Name withheld by police
515. Javier Magdaleno
516. Kenneth Michael Dallas
517. Name withheld by police
518. Ezekiel Meza
519. Franklin Gray
520. Kevin Hayes
521. Andrew Scott Kislek
522. Name withheld by police
523. Joshua Crites
524. Name withheld by police
525. Anthony Andrew Reunart
526. Name withheld by police
527. Name withheld by police
528. Name withheld by police
529. Kevin Costlow
530. Dennis Denham
531. Anthony Greco
532. Keenan Sailer
533. Brooke Leann Blair
534. Brian Gregory Scott
535. Demarko Montez Henderson
536. Cortez Lee Bogan
537. Name withheld by police
538. Jacob Aaron Thomas
539. Jonathan Turner
540. Name withheld by police
541. Name withheld by police
542. Name withheld by police
543. Adam Bruce Connors
544. Phillip N. Davenport
545. Bruce Diehl
546. Name withheld by police
547. Name withheld by police
548. Name withheld by police
549. Richard Councilman
550. Tracy Drowne
551. John Allen Dunaway III
552. Jason Jesse Gallegos
553. Channing Lamar Spivey
554. Joshua Blessed aka Sergei Jourev
555. Steven Edward Ferguson
556. Sarah Grossman
557. Robert Anthony ``Jordan'' Whitehead
558. John Benedict Coleman
559. Name withheld by police
560. Caleb Rule
561. Israel Berry
562. Thomas Jeffery Sutherlin
563. Ryan Emblem Moore
564. Robert James Lyon
565. Scott Hutton
566. Mary Lawrence
567. Gregory W. Hallback
568. Benjamin Ballard
569. Jarrid Hurst
570. Morgan James Davis
571. Marcus James Uribe
572. Mason James Lira
573. Gregorio Cruz Vanloo
574. William Slyter
575. Hannah R. Fizer
576. Nicholas Hirsch
577. Troy Willey
578. Keith Willliam Brunelle
579. Jack Harry
580. David Lee Jacobs
581. Kellen Fortune
582. Buddy Edward Weeks
583. Cody W. Cook
584. Sabastian S. Noel
585. Benjamin Paul Brooks
586. Aaron Wesley Keller
587. Bonnie Jo Figueroa-Ortiz
588. Michael Pelley
589. James Tober Sr.
590. John Parks
591. Wade Russell Meisberger
592. Brittany S. Teichroeb
593. Jason Noble Snow
594. Wade Protus Phillips
595. Constantin Filan
596. Erick Gilmore
597. Paul Eugene Armstrong
598. Adam Lucas Carroll
599. Kevin Michael Norton
600. Terena Nicole Thurman
601. Sean Ernest Ruis
602. Tim O'Shea
603. Tyler Blevens
604. Name withheld by police
605. Chase Rountree
606. Name withheld by police
607. Kyle Elrod
608. Scott M. Kontowicz
609. John Karl Sieger
610. Christopher Poor
611. Andrew Jacob Preece
612. Howard Owens
613. James Justin Munro Jr.
614. Russell Van Liddell
615. Adrean Stephenson
616. Christopher Kimmons Craven
617. David Lee Rigg
618. David James Pruitte
619. Nicholas Kocolis
620. Jeffrey Scott Haarsrma
621. Johnathan Randell
622. Aaron Michael Griffin
623. Matthew Hilbelink
624. Earl Barton Jr.
625. Chris Minor
626. Joshua Squires
[[Page H1066]]
627. Kenneth Reiss
628. Joshua Gay
629. Rick Lee Miller
630. Jeffrey Hubbard
631. Thomas Moles
632. Jimmy Ferrer
633. Keith Allen Fileger
634. Erik Jon Perez
635. Jack Lamar Harris
636. Jeffrey Wratten
637. Shiloh D. Smith
638. Nathan Harrington
639. Scott Huffman
640. Joey Middleton
641. Damien Evans
642. Nikolas Frazier
643. Albert Wheeler
644. Timothy Clevenger
645. Michael Forest Reinoehl
646. Joshua Beedie
647. Andrew Blowers
648. Seth Holliday
649. Jeffrey Meyer
650. Chad Busby
651. Robert Ray Doss Jr.
652. Glenn ``G'' Alvin Eldridge
653. Clay A. Reynolds
654. Name withheld by police
655. Matthew Lyvon Paul
656. Scott Heisler
657. Rickey Wayne Riney
658. Matthew C. Knowlden
659. Joshua Sarrett
660. Andrea Chuma
661. Jeffery Ryan Blunk
662. Christopher Michael Straub
663. Matthew Nocerino
664. Erik ``Ace'' Mahoney
665. Jarred Kemp
666. James Edward Baker
667. Eric Marc-Matthew Allport
668. Justin Lee Tofte
669. Crystal Renee Starling Mcclinton
670. John Hare
671. Shayne Allen Sutherland
672. William Sendelbach
673. Kalun Purucker
674. Anthony Michael Legato
675. Sylvia Kirchner
676. Julie Fandino
677. Rodney Ross
678. Jason Arpad Peters
679. Steven Vest
680. Christopher Allen Kanouff
681. William Earl Lane
682. Justin Dawley
683. Bradley Pugh
684. Darren W. Randolph
685. Paul Bailey
686. Gregory Putnik
687. Chistopher John Kitts
688. Bryan Selmer
689. James Collins
690. Brandon Evans
691. Richard ``RJ'' James Jones
692. Paul Sarver
693. Ryan Fallo
694. Isaac Lemoine Christensen
695. Bennie Biby
696. Frank Murphy
697. John Pacheaco Jr.
698. Quincy Ivan Bishop
699. John Mellone
700. Guy Bradly Able
701. Justin Hammack
702. Michael Moza
703. Jacob Rucker
704. Wendy Jones
705. Jesse James Kale Brown
706. Douglas E. Rash
707. Charles Craig Meeks
708. Cody William Amman
709. Jake Settle
710. David Donovan
711. Joshua D. Evans
712. Dustin James Acosta
713. James Horton
714. Michael Dansby
715. Matthew Thomas
716. Brittany Nicole Yoder
717. Brian Allen Thurman
718. Joshua Lee LaPlace
719. Duane W. Rich
720. Ethan Tyler Calton
721. Craig Steven Wright
722. Leonard Francis Kieren
723. Dylan Ray Scott
724. Kenneth Dale Miller
725. Eric Drake Feenstra
726. David John Donelli
727. Name withheld by police
728. Adam Robertson
729. Benjamin Marley Manley aka Christopher Reeves
730. Joshua Hoffpauir
731. Jacob E. McClure
732. William A. Riley-Jennings
733. Joseph Tanner Casten
734. Tara Rae Liubakka
735. Cole Blevins
736. Jordan Crawford
737. Trevor Seever
738. Jason Williams
739. Henry Martinez Jr.
740. James Reising
741. Amanda Faulkner
742. Michael Conlon
743. Ashli Babbitt
744. John R. Neitling
745. Brian Andren
746. Betty Francois
747. Brian Williams
748. Junius Thomas
749. Daryl Dye
750. Ty Walvatne-Donahey
751. Joshua Van Machado
752. Jeffrey D. Kite
753. Justin Pegues
754. Robert Stephen Calderon
755. Kevin Darion Wells
756. Christopher Austin Dockery
757. Ryan Daniel Stallings
758. Brian Richard Abbott
759. Steven Verdone
760. Caleb McCree
761. John Eric Ostbye
762. Edward Bittner
763. Mark Meza
764. Chase Coats
765. Keith Scales
766. Chad William Songer
767. Richard Fenton Thomas
768. Tracy Hope Walter-Hensley
769. Nicholas Pingel
770. Tilford ``TJ'' Barton
771. Ariella Sage Eloise Crawford
772. Clay Tatum
773. Shae Estelle Jones
774. Joseph Johnson
775. Trey Bartholomew
776. Clifford E. Wilbur Jr.
777. Eric J. Porter
778. Brian D. Ellis
779. Gregory Chandler Metz
780. Royce Robertston
781. Lewis Ruffin Jr.
782. Derrick Thompson
783. Name withheld by police
784. Name withheld by police
785. Name withheld by police
786. Name withheld by police
787. Name withheld by police
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, the chairman of the committee has said
several times that Democrats are not for defunding the police, but I
would just point out the individual presiding over this session said
that defunding the police is not a slogan, it is a policy demand.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Davidson).
Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, the Justice in Policing Act was crafted in response to
George Floyd's murder. Almost no one believes that that was
justifiable. Partisans have snatched this moment of unity to further
divide our Nation.
How have they done that?
Look at this debate. Speaker after speaker has hurled insults falsely
claiming that no Republican supports reform. Now, it is true that we
don't support this reform, but the majority has refused to even
consider amendments or alternatives to this partisan bill.
An essential component of any justice in policing bill would correct
current injustices. I only have time to mention one: warrantless
surveillance of American citizens is wrong.
Get a warrant.
Last year, conservatives and progressives united around this point,
and the Speaker blocked debate or amendment to FISA reauthorization.
Now the same tactics are being employed. Every single Member of
Congress is here to represent American citizens, and denying us
amendments denies all Americans a voice.
Don't politicize something that can heal and unite us. Vote ``no'' on
this bill. Insist on regular order.
{time} 1930
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).
Mrs. BEATTY. Madam Speaker, 8 minutes, 46 seconds on George Floyd's
neck. ``I can't breathe.''
Say their names, Madam Speaker.
Breonna Taylor, Casey Goodson, Jr., Andre Hill, Eric Garner, Tamir
Rice, and so many more.
While we can never bring them back and we cannot undo the pain their
families, friends, and communities have felt, we can do everything in
our power if we unite and pass this bill.
As the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I urge all of my
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join us.
Our power, our message, is to pass the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act.
The right should read the bill. The right should quote from the bill.
Show me those words in the bill to defund the police.
I will show you accountability. I will show you transparency. I will
show you justice.
The American people are calling on Congress to act. Yes, Black Lives
Matter.
Let's meet the moment and turn agony into action. Let's pass the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a former sheriff.
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
bill.
This bill should be a balefire, a warning to America that there are
those
[[Page H1067]]
across the aisle who wish to attempt to federalize State and local law
enforcement. I would like to focus specifically, though, on this move
to eliminate qualified immunity. This is a betrayal of law enforcement.
This alone is enough reason to vote against this bill.
There is a myth, a lie, perpetrated by those who want to do away with
qualified immunity, that qualified immunity gives officers free rein on
the job. This is not true. This is not sovereign immunity; it is
qualified immunity.
The way that an officer qualifies for that immunity and for it to
apply in an action that he has taken, he must follow the law, he must
follow his agency's policies, and he has to act as he has been
appropriately trained. If he violates any one of those three, he is on
his own; qualified immunity does not apply.
Madam Speaker, law enforcement is a dangerous profession that deals
in split-second decisions. Most people in this room have no idea what
it is like to determine, in a high-stress, life-threatening----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 9 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bowman).
Mr. BOWMAN. Madam Speaker, I was 11 years old when the police beat
the crap out of me. Eleven years old, sixth grade; what threat did I
pose, other than that of a child who was horseplaying in the street?
My mother and I did not feel empowered to take any recourse, because
in our community, the police, unfortunately, operate as an occupying
force.
I thank God that I am alive to tell this story. Unfortunately, George
Floyd is not alive. Philando Castile is not alive. Tamir Rice is not
alive. Aiyana Jones slept in her apartment on her couch. She was 7
years old. Police came in with a no-knock warrant and murdered her.
This is about transparency and accountability, and we should pass the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act in a bipartisan way.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
this bill, and that is a shame, because this is an area that is ripe
for bipartisan compromise.
But the House continues to spend its time forcing through another
Democratic package that had zero Republican input. We considered this
very same bill last Congress, but it only passed the House with three
Republican votes in support.
Meanwhile, my colleagues, Representative Pete Stauber and Senator Tim
Scott, have proposed the JUSTICE Act to positively reform police to
serve all Americans equally.
However, their sincere efforts have not even been considered by those
across the aisle. That bill would improve law enforcement transparency,
require more detailed records on the use of force, provide funds for
body cameras, ban choke holds, and improve training to intervene in
situations and deescalate. These are all things we agree upon.
Yet, instead of equipping our law enforcement for success, we are
considering this bill that would make it harder for our police officers
to keep our communities safe.
Every community is different and dictating policy from Washington
will only constrain our law enforcement heroes who put their lives on
the line.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, and still I rise.
My dear friends, you say you have a bill. Where was your bill when
you had the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, and you could have
passed it?
You say you have a bill. The same bill that you had to replace the
Affordable Care Act that you never passed?
The same bill that you had to rebuild the infrastructure across the
length and breadth of this country that you never passed?
Where is the invisible bill?
I rise to support this bill that will deal with elimination of deadly
force racism that can take the lives of Black people with impunity.
I rise against your invisible bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded again to direct their
remarks to the Chair and not to each other.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, Senator Scott had legislation, good
legislation, but the Democrats wouldn't take it up; they filibustered.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, what happened to George Floyd is
atrocious, it is criminal, and the policeman will be held accountable;
he has got to be.
But that has nothing to do with eliminating immunity for countless
policemen across the country. This bill does not properly address or
prevent what happened in poor George Floyd's case.
Why would we have a bill that eliminates immunity for anybody
charging the Capitol, breaking in illegally? They would be able to sue
the police in the future, tie them up in court. Why would we do that?
Because if we do this--follow the money--then the unions will be
selling a lot of liability insurance; it will be the biggest fundraiser
they have ever had.
Let's get together and come together on a bill that will not just
raise money, not just hire more lawyers, but will solve the problem of
the death, as criminal as it was, of George Floyd.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, this bill isn't about what we just
heard. This bill is a moment of potential redemption for a country
riven by racial division, riven by a history of racism going back to
slavery, the Reconstruction era, post-Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the
violent oppression of people because of the color of their skin.
We, in this body, have an opportunity to redeem our country and its
history. Let us unite behind that cause and that opportunity at
redemption.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1280, the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act of 2021.
The peaceful protests for racial justice last summer compelled a long
overdue reckoning for our country to take action to fulfill America's
promise of equality no matter the color of your skin.
That is why I am proud to cosponsor this proposal to end police
brutality and address the systemic racism that has marred American law
enforcement for generations.
With this legislation, we finally say enough is enough: We've had
enough of racial and religious profiling; Enough of no-knock warrants
and chokeholds; and Enough of police using military-grade equipment on
our American streets.
We are a country crying out for an end to the centuries-long scourge
of racist brutality that has stolen so many black lives from our
communities.
The Justice in Policing Act will help erode the culture of impunity
within too many of our police forces by bringing much-needed
accountability and transparency to our law enforcement institutions.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1280, a
purely partisan bill, developed with zero Republican input, that would
defund the police and hamstring the ability of our law enforcement
agencies to keep our communities safe.
This bill would lower the legal threshold to criminally prosecute a
police officer for deprivation of rights, which would, at best, lead to
a torrent of frivolous cases against officers and, at worst, discourage
them from doing their jobs.
Our officers are already forced to work in difficult environments.
Countless officers have already simply quit or retired early, while
morale has plummeted for those who stay. It will continue if this bill
passes.
I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1280, a bill
that defunds the police.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
[[Page H1068]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 6\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, Eric Garner,
George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, all Black men and women who were killed
by police.
It is in their memory that I rise today in support of the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act, because we cannot live up to our ideals
of justice for all while BIPOC Americans are disproportionately killed
by police.
We need to pass this bill to save lives, to reform qualified
immunity, to ban no-knock warrants like the one that contributed to the
death of Breonna Taylor, to end the use of choke holds that killed Eric
Garner and George Floyd.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this long
overdue bill, to join me in this work to make this country a safer,
more just place for all Americans. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, death and destruction at this Capitol
from recent Trump-instigated violence shows the result of insufficient
policing. The deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and in my
area, Mike Ramos and Javier Ambler, and too many more, from misconduct,
show the result of insufficient justice. As the name of this bill,
``Justice in Policing,'' indicates this bill is not about removing the
police; it is about removing the injustice. It seeks accountability.
It seeks equal justice under the law by our law enforcers,
particularly for people of color, who have too often been victimized by
systemic racism. Instead of working with us to make it better and
secure our communities and more justice for all, many of today's
Republican opponents are only spouting the poisonous slogans of
Trumpism. Because Black and Brown lives do matter, let's approve this
bill to achieve greater justice for all in an America that is safer for
all.
{time} 1945
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Good).
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
this bill, which represents the worst of Washington: defunding police
in a surprise vote in the middle of the night.
This bill advances the far-left Democrat platform, and would defund
the police through unfunded mandates that cost State and local
departments millions of dollars.
If this weren't bad enough, the bill advances an antipolice agenda
with Washington-knows-best regulations, and puts a target on the backs
of everyday officers by creating a national database of complaints that
have not been adjudicated.
Madam Speaker, I oppose the bill. I stand with law enforcement, and I
am grateful for those who serve on the thin blue line.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Torres).
Mr. TORRES of New York. Madam Speaker, as a person of color who has
seen in my own life the dehumanizing effect of stop-and-frisk policing
in New York City, I know firsthand that the Achilles' heel of American
policing is the absence of accountability.
We, as a country, have a choice. We can either choose police
accountability or choose qualified immunity, but we cannot choose both.
The purpose of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is not to
second-guess officers who act in good faith. The objective is to hold
liable officers who repeatedly abuse their power and who rarely, if
ever, face consequences for their repeat abuses.
If you are a good officer, you have nothing to fear. But if you are a
bad officer, you have accountability to fear, and fear accountability,
you should.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Ms. Williams).
Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, what we saw happen to George
Floyd was not an isolated incident. It was a modern-day lynching caught
on camera, and it must stop.
Black men, women, and children are done dying. We are done dying at
the hands of police.
Law enforcement should protect and serve. But in communities of
color, we don't have the luxury of making that assumption. Many Black
people get the talk, instructions on how to act when encountering
police to increase the likelihood of returning home alive. These are
survival tactics that my husband and I don't want to have to pass on to
my young Black son, but we must.
For Black and Brown people everywhere, I urge my colleagues to vote
``yes'' on the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Let's affirm our
commitment to root out police brutality and ensure accountability in
policing.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, I rise today in loving memory of Aiyana
Jones, who was only 7 years old when she was killed by Detroit police.
The fact that the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act could have
been named after countless other people murdered by police shows that
this is long overdue. It is important to note this bill is a start, not
the end, of our movement to transform what it means to feel safe in our
country.
We must demand true accountability, justice, and reparations for the
generations of police brutality against our Black communities. We must
invest in the social programs that we know will give our communities
the opportunity to thrive.
This is the justice that Aiyana Jones and George Floyd and many other
lives lost to police violence deserve.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 3\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Mfume).
Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, there is an old African proverb that says:
Until the lions tell their own story, the tales of the hunt will always
glorify the hunter.
Who are the lions? They are the victims. They are Black and Brown and
indigenous. They have suffered, endured, and survived 200 years of
brutality, slavery, racism, Jim Crow, oppression, deprivation,
degradation, denial, and disprivilege.
We have learned in this country one thing, that justice comes in
small steps. And when we consider the enslavement of the Negro, the
extermination of the Indian, the annexation of the Hispanic, our Nation
that we love had an iniquitous conception.
So these small steps, no matter how painful they are, must be taken.
This bill helps move us toward a more perfect Union. I urge passage of
the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Madam Speaker, as a representative of more than a
quarter of NYPD's 36,000 active officers, and thousands more retirees
and first responders, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1280 and every
piece of legislation that aims to cripple or degrade our law
enforcement.
Instead of working with Republicans, my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle have chosen to push forth yet another partisan bill that
will diminish public safety and prevent our law enforcement officers
from serving and protecting our communities, all while trying to hold
them personally liable. The brave men and women who put on the uniform
every day deserve better.
We have offered real solutions to increase transparency,
accountability, and performance so our Nation's law enforcement
officers can better serve and protect all.
But make no mistake, this bill you are about to pass today defunds
the police. The Congressional Budget Office
[[Page H1069]]
has confirmed that the unfunded mandates contained in this bill will
drain the resources of State and local law enforcement to the tune of
several hundred million dollars. This is negligence.
As a resident of New York City who has seen our police department's
budget slashed by a billion dollars by politicians who think they know
more than the officers doing the job on the street, I can tell you that
there are serious ramifications.
Crime has skyrocketed. Last year, shootings increased by 97 percent,
and murders increased by 44 percent. We have seen livelihoods and
properties destroyed by rioters and looters in cities across America.
Government's number one responsibility to its citizenry is to keep
them safe. Defunding law enforcement is an abdication of that
responsibility.
Tonight, I call on every Member of this body to cosponsor my Right to
Remain Safe Act, which holds local governments responsible should
someone become a victim of a crime due to government's negligence.
Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit today, we will
instruct the Judiciary Committee to consider my amendment to H.R. 1280
to include a simple, straightforward sense of Congress strongly
rejecting efforts to defund the police.
Madam Speaker, my colleagues say they don't support defunding the
police. Well, here is their chance to show it.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to say thank you to the
millions of Americans who peacefully put this bill on the agenda.
It was nowhere last year until we saw 8 minutes and 46 seconds of a
man being murdered, a Black man, George Floyd. People--White, Black,
all different colors--took to the streets, and they said, ``No more.''
I want to thank those activists and ordinary people who said we don't
have to tolerate this.
The bill passed last year, and it is going to pass again because the
American people are tired of this racism and the killing and killing
and killing of Black people.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, you said: Defunding the police is not a slogan; it is
a policy demand.
Over 20 cities in this great country enacted that. They did that to
the tune of $1.7 billion taken from the brave men and women who protect
us all. That is our concern.
We would have loved to have worked with the other side. We had a
bill. Senator Scott worked tirelessly on it. Representative Stauber,
former police officer Stauber, on our side worked night and day on it.
But Democrats wouldn't work with us, wouldn't take any of our
amendments.
This is a partisan, political bill, unfortunately. That is why I urge
a ``no'' vote.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act, which bans police choke holds, creates a
national police misconduct registry, and eliminates qualified immunity,
among other needed provisions.
I grieved when first watching George Floyd's murder by a cop, and I
grieve still over the continued loss of so many Blacks killed by cops.
There have been 149 Black men killed at the hands of police since
George Floyd's murder. I have been fighting against this police
brutality since my first days as a member of the California State
Assembly.
But here we are, mourning the victims of police choke holds, Blacks
being shot in the back, fathers being killed in front of their children
and their families. We Blacks are under siege by rogue cops, who we pay
to protect and serve us, and White supremacists and domestic
terrorists.
We have to resist this. We have to say to bad cops in blue that we
are going to fight you. Or proud boys in yellow gear, we are going to
fight you. We are going to resist you.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a comprehensive bill to address systemic
racism in law enforcement.
Today's legislation is named for George Floyd, whose senseless death
at the hands of a police officer shocked the conscience of millions of
Americans and sparked a long-overdue reckoning on race in America and a
movement demanding racial justice. Congress has heard this call for
justice, and in response, Congresswoman Karen Bass and the
Congressional Black Caucus have written this critical legislation to
hold police accountable, change the culture of law enforcement, and
build trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act takes these challenges head
on by banning chokeholds, mandating racial bias training, ending
qualified immunity, restricting the sale of military-grade weapons to
local police departments, and establishing a National Police Misconduct
Registry. While the inequities in our criminal justice system are
immense, this legislation is a bold step to address systemic racism in
law enforcement, and the time has come to make these reforms the law of
the land.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to affirm my
support as an original cosponsor for H.R. 1280, the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act of 2021.
This is not a new issue. But one that we continue to revisit over.
And over. And over.
Madam Speaker, how many times will my Republican colleagues affirm
that Black Lives Matter as the blood of Black Lives cry out from
American cities and streets?
Despite what my Republican colleagues are purporting, the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act will not defund the police.
But what it will do is bring us one step closer to justice by:
banning chokeholds; prohibiting no-knock warrants; ending the qualified
immunity doctrine that is a barrier to holding police officers
accountable for wrongful conduct; Combatting racial profiling;
Mandating there be data collection of these incidences for tracking,
including body cameras and dashboard cameras; and; establishing new
standards for policing.
George Floyd's death should not be in vain. And as a mother of a
black son. Grandmother to three black grandsons, I do not want to have
to worry about their safety when they encounter the police who are
sworn to protect and serve. Not be the judge, jury, and onsite
executioner.
Black lives matter, Madam Speaker, and it is past time that the laws
of our nation reflect it. That is why I am urging my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to support this bill. It goes without saying that I
strongly encourage its immediate consideration and passage in the
Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 179, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on 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.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Malliotakis moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1280 to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Malliotakis is as follows:
Add, at the end of the bill, the following (and conform the
table of contents):
SEC. 503. SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the
House--
(1) recognizes and appreciates the dedication and devotion
demonstrated by the men and women of law enforcement who keep
our communities and our nation safe; and
(2) condemns calls to ``defund'', ``disband'',
``dismantle'', or ``abolish'' the police.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
[[Page H1070]]
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 208,
nays 219, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 59]
YEAS--208
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin
NAYS--219
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--4
Brady
Buck
Graves (LA)
Jones
{time} 2043
Mr. CASTEN and Ms. TITUS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. SIMPSON, ROSE, and BUDD changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 59.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS
Amodei (Kelly (PA))
Boyle, Brendan F. (Jeffries)
Buchanan (LaHood)
Cardenas (Gomez)
DeSaulnier (Matsui)
Deutch (Rice (NY))
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Gaetz (McHenry)
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
Huffman (McNerney)
Kelly (IL) (Kuster)
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Krishnamoorthi (Brown)
Langevin (Lynch)
Larson (CT) (Courtney)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lee (NV) (Kuster)
Lieu (Beyer)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
Meng (Clark (MA))
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Moulton (McGovern)
Napolitano (Correa)
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
Pingree (Kuster)
Roybal-Allard (Escobar)
Ruiz (Aguilar)
Rush (Underwood)
Speier (Scanlon)
Vargas (Correa)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carson). 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.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 212, not voting 0, as follows:
[Roll No. 60]
YEAS--220
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gooden (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
[[Page H1071]]
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--212
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Golden
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kind
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Young
Zeldin
{time} 2127
Mr. ARMSTRONG changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK and Mr. KILMER changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. GOODEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was shown voting aye on rollcall
No. 60. I intended to vote no.
Members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress
Amodei (Kelly (PA))
Boyle, Brendan F. (Jeffries)
Buchanan (LaHood)
Cardenas (Gomez)
DeSaulnier (Matsui)
Deutch (Rice (NY))
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Gaetz (McHenry)
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
Huffman (McNerney)
Kelly (IL) (Kuster)
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Krishnamoorthi (Brown)
Langevin (Lynch)
Larson (CT) (Courtney)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lee (NV) (Kuster)
Lieu (Beyer)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
Meng (Clark (MA))
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Moulton (McGovern)
Napolitano (Correa)
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
Pingree (Kuster)
Roybal-Allard (Escobar)
Ruiz (Aguilar)
Rush (Underwood)
Speier (Scanlon)
Vargas (Correa)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
____________________