[Pages H2439-H2503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

GEORGE FLOYD JUSTICE IN POLICING ACT OF 2020

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1017, I call
up the bill (H.R. 7120) to hold law enforcement accountable for
misconduct

[[Page H2440]]

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 1017, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
the Judiciary, printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed
in part D of House Report 116-436, is adopted and the bill, as amended,
is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 7120

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 2020''.
(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.

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 2020), 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--

[[Page H2441]]

``(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).
``(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 2020, 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
2021 through 2023 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 2021 through 2023 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 2020''.

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).

[[Page H2442]]

(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.
(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 2020.''.
(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 2020.''.
(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

[[Page H2443]]

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.--
(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 2021 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
2021, 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);

[[Page H2444]]

(B) complaints that are pending review, disaggregated by
whether the complaint involved a use of force or racial
profiling; and
(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 2020'' or the ``PRIDE
Act of 2020''.

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 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,

[[Page H2445]]

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 2020'' 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.
(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;

[[Page H2446]]

(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 2020.''.
(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);
(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

[[Page H2447]]

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 2020'' or the
``PEACE Act of 2020''.
(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--
(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:

[[Page H2448]]

``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 2020; 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 2020; 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;
``(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 2020; 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

[[Page H2449]]

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 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.

[[Page H2450]]

(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;
(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

[[Page H2451]]

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 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

[[Page H2452]]

Available Act of 2020'' or the ``Police CAMERA Act of 2020''.

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;
``(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 2020, 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 2019''.

[[Page H2453]]

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 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, as amended, shall be debatable for
4 hours, equally divided among 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 2 hours.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

General Leave

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 7120.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the tragic and brutal death of George Floyd has been a
wake-up call for millions of Americans. Across the Nation and around
the world, the streets are lined with protesters demanding fundamental
change in the culture of law enforcement and meaningful accountability
for officers who commit misconduct. Today, we answer their call.
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. Too
many law enforcement officers do not uphold the ethic of protecting and
serving their community. Instead, the reality for too many Americans--
especially for too many African Americans--is that police officers are
perceived as a threat to their liberties, to their dignity, and, all
too often, to their safety.
To those who do not believe it, look at these tragic statistics.
African Americans are more than twice as likely to be shot and killed
by police each year, and Black men between the ages of 15 and 34 are
approximately 10 times more likely to be killed by police than other
Americans.
This is not a new problem. Our country's history of racism and
racially motivated violence is rooted in the original sin of slavery,
lynchings, and Jim Crow, and systemic racism 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. We see
it in the harassment and excessive force that people of color routinely
face by far too many of our police officers.
An unmistakable message has been sent to African Americans in this
country that they are second class citizens and that their lives are
somehow of less value. Well, let me state clearly and unequivocally
that Black lives matter.
George Floyd mattered.
Breonna Taylor mattered.
Eric Garner mattered.
Amadou Diallo mattered.
Tamir Rice mattered.
Walter Scott mattered.
Laquan McDonald and so many others mattered.
Rayshard Brooks mattered, and the countless other people who have
lost their lives at the hands of law enforcement mattered.
For far too long, pleas for justice and reform have fallen on deaf
ears in Congress. But that changes today. The George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act would finally allow for meaningful accountability in cases
of police misconduct, and it would begin the process of reimagining
policing in the 21st century.
This legislation makes it easier for the Federal Government to
successfully prosecute police misconduct

[[Page H2454]]

cases. It effectively bans chokeholds, ends racial and religious
profiling, encourages prosecutions independent from local police, and
eliminates the dubious court-made doctrine of qualified immunity in
civil rights lawsuits against law enforcement officers.
At the same time, it works to prevent police violence and bias
through a series of front-end approaches aimed at encouraging
departments to meet a gold standard in training, hiring, de-escalation
strategies, bystander duty, use of body cameras, and other best
practices.
The bill also ends no-knock warrants in drug cases, stops the
militarization of local policing, and requires the collection of data
on a number of key policing matters which would be made public,
including the first ever national database on police misconduct
incidents to prevent the movement of dangerous officers from department
to department.
It also creates a new grant program for community-based organizations
to create local commissions and task forces on policing innovation to
reimagine how public safety could work in a truly equitable and just
way in each community.
I want to thank the sponsor of this legislation, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Bass), for her tremendous work in crafting a bill that
is at once bold and transformative, while also taking a responsible and
balanced approach to the many complicated issues associated with
policing.
I also want to thank the activists across the country who are leading
the protests. It is because of you that we are here today considering
the most significant reforms to policing in a generation. It is because
of your energy, your determination, and your demands for justice that
the Nation has awakened to the need for action.
I know that everyone in this Chamber mourns those who have lost their
lives at the hands of law enforcement. But today is our opportunity to
offer more than just sympathy. Today is our opportunity to show the
world that we are listening and that we will respond with real and
lasting reforms.
Thoughts and prayers are not enough. Pledges to study the problem are
not enough. Half measures are not enough. Pretend sham measures are not
enough.
We must not let this moment slip away. If we do, it will be a
terrible stain on our legacy.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this vital
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, June 18. 2020.
Hon. Adam Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing to you concerning section
365 of H.R. 7120, the ``Justice in Policing Act of 2020.''
I appreciate your willingness to work cooperatively on this
legislation. I recognize that section 365 of the bill
contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Armed Services. I acknowledge that your
Committee will not formally consider H.R. 7120 and agree that
the inaction of your Committee with respect to the bill does
not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the matters
contained in H.R. 7120 which fall within your Committee's
Rule X jurisdiction.
I will ensure that our exchange of letters is included in
the Congressional Record during floor consideration of the
bill. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this
legislation and look forward to continuing to work with you
as this measure moves through the legislative process.
Sincerely.
Jerrold Nadler,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC, June 19, 2020.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Nadler: I am writing to you concerning H.R.
7120, the ``Justice in Policing Act of 2020.'' There are
certain provisions in this legislation that fall within the
Rule X jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee.
In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed
expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill,
we will not formally consider H.R. 7120. We do so with the
understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill, the
Committee on Armed Services does not waive any future
jurisdictional claims over the subject matters contained in
the bill which fall within its Rule X jurisdiction.
Please ensure that our exchange of letters is included in
the Congressional Record during floor consideration of the
bill. Thank you for the cooperative spirit in which you have
worked regarding this matter and others between our
respective Committees.
Sincerely,
Adam Smith,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, June 24, 2020.
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Pallone: I am writing to you concerning
section 362 of H.R. 7120, the ``Justice in Policing Act of
2020.''
I appreciate your willingness to work cooperatively on this
legislation. I recognize that section 362 of the bill
contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. I acknowledge that your
Committee will not formally consider H.R. 7120 and agree that
the inaction of your Committee with respect to the bill does
not waive any future jurisdictional claim over the matters
contained in H.R. 7120 which fall within your Committee's
Rule X jurisdiction.
I will ensure that our exchange of letters is included in
the Congressional Record during floor consideration of the
bill. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this
legislation and look forward to continuing to work with you
as this measure moves through the legislative process.
Sincerely,
Jerrold Nadler,
Chairman.
____

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, June 24, 2020.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
Chair, Committee on Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Nadler: I write concerning H.R. 7120, the
``Justice in Policing Act of 2020,'' which was additionally
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce (Committee).
In recognition of the desire to expedite consideration of
H.R. 7120, the Committee agrees to waive formal consideration
of the bill as to provisions that fall within the Rule X
jurisdiction of the Committee. The Committee takes this
action with the mutual understanding that we do not waive any
jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or
similar legislation, and that the Committee will be
appropriately consulted and involved as this bill or similar
legislation moves forward so that we may address any
remaining issues within our jurisdiction. I also request that
you support my request to name members of the Committee to
any conference committee to consider such provisions.
Finally, I would appreciate the inclusion of this letter
into the Congressional Record during floor consideration of
H.R. 7120.
Sincerely,
Frank Pallone, Jr.
Chairman.

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, what happened to George Floyd last month in
Minneapolis was tragic, horrific, and as wrong as wrong could be. His
family deserved justice, and I hope they get that swiftly. Bad police
officers must be held accountable for their misconduct, and justice
must be carried out.
While we focus on rooting out the bad apples, we need to remember
that the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers are good
people who put themselves in harm's way to keep the rest of us safe.
We need meaningful legislation that increases training, ensures
transparency, holds everyone accountable, and guarantees that tragedies
similar to what happened in Minneapolis don't happen again.
This moment in our great Nation's history demands that we work
together across the aisle to fashion legislation that works,
legislation that actually makes a real and lasting difference.
Unfortunately, Democrats haven't done that, and they show no sign of
wanting to do that. They didn't consult us when they put together this
legislation.
In committee just last week, Republicans offered 12 thoughtful and
good amendments, every single one voted down--every single one.
In the Senate just yesterday, Democrats voted to not even debate a
commonsense proposal put forward by Senator Scott.
Now, it is interesting. There was some bipartisan support for moving
to debate. Two Democrats and one Independent voted with the
Republicans, yet Democrats chose partisanship over real reform.

[[Page H2455]]

We need reform, but House Democrats have delivered a bill that is
designed to keep cops in the car; and when you do that, it makes our
communities less safe by preventing good law enforcement officers from
being able to do their job. That is what this bill is going to do. Now
is not the time to cripple the men and women who so selflessly serve
our communities.
This bill has serious due process concerns for law enforcement
officers.
Bad officers must be held accountable for their crimes. No one
disputes that. But this bill would punish unadjudicated allegations
against officers, including officers who may be innocent of those
allegations.
This bill will make our law enforcement officers less safe by
prohibiting them from obtaining surplus equipment from our Federal
Government.
We had an amendment in the committee that says: What about just
allowing folks on the border dealing with the cartels, dealing with the
terrorists they deal with down there, what about letting those law
enforcement agencies have access to surplus military equipment?
Democrats said no. That was one of the 12 amendments they said no to.
This equipment allows officers to protect themselves and the
communities they serve. For example, armored vehicles in Texas were
used to rescue people from rising floodwaters during Hurricane Harvey,
and helmets saved the lives of officers who were shot at while
responding to the terrorist attack at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando in
2016.
And this bill does nothing to address the calls for defunding and
dismantling police departments. Frankly, I have never heard such a
crazy idea. This concept, the most insane public policy proposal I have
ever heard--and I have been in politics a few years--will certainly
make our communities less safe.
It is a real failure of leadership that the Speaker and the chairman
chose not to even seek any Republican consensus, any Republican input
on the legislation. Rather than working with us in the House to put
forward meaningful bipartisan solutions, Democrats have rushed this
bill to the floor and have put forward extreme measures, knowing these
measures will not pass the Senate and will not get to the President's
desk.
Just last week, we held a markup for this bill. As I said, every
single one of the Republican amendments were rejected by my Democrat
colleagues, all 12 of them.
Fortunately, President Trump has led the way and signed an executive
order last week that will invest more energy and resources in police
training, recruiting, and community engagement. We have consulted with
many of the law enforcement folks on our side, like the sponsor of our
legislation, Mr. Stauber, 20 years as a commander in the Duluth Police
Department. That community engagement is essential. That is what is
also in the President's executive order, this in addition to his many
achievements over the past 3\1/2\ years, including record low
unemployment, a booming economy, the 2017 tax cuts, the USMCA, the
FIRST STEP Act, and the list goes on and on.
Senator Scott's bill, which as I said Mr. Stauber introduced in the
House, also gets to the heart of the issue without hamstringing the men
and women who faithfully serve our communities. It focuses on training,
accountability, and transparency.

It provides additional training for our law enforcement officers in
de-escalation tactics and the duty to intervene when an officer is
observing excessive use of force. It provides more funding for body
cameras and for the storage of the footage.
It prevents bad officers from going from department to department and
creates an enhanced penalty for the falsifying of police reports. It is
a bill that has the right answers and a bill that should pass the
Senate and get signed into law by the President.
Now is the time for us to come together as Americans and continue to
make this country the greatest nation ever.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, Mr. Jordan is correct. The Democrats in
the Senate did indeed oppose the Republican bill because that bill is a
sham designed to look as if it is doing something, designed to look as
if it is having some reform while, in fact, doing nothing, just more
sham and just more sham histrionics designed to make sure that nothing
real passes and that nothing changes.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act because Black lives matter.
Police killed George Floyd over a counterfeit $20 bill as if his life
didn't matter.
Police in Atlanta, Georgia, killed Rayshard Brooks for running away
as if his life didn't matter.
Breonna Taylor, Kathryn Johnston, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Philando
Castile, Eric Garner, and a long list of others, each killed by police
and robbed of their constitutional right to due process.

{time} 1345

None of these notorious killings moved Congress to act. It took
regular folks of all races, creeds, and colors taking to the streets in
every part of this country, even in the face of a global pandemic, to
tell the world that we have had enough of police killing Black folks.
Our people need to know that we hear them. And Congress knows that on
the one hand, President Trump's cronies, like Roger Stone and Michael
Flynn, can lie to Federal investigators only to receive a get-out-of-
jail free card from the President's protector, Attorney General William
Barr. But on the other hand, regular Black folks, like George Floyd and
Rayshard Brooks--accosted for broken-taillight types of offenses--get
executed by the police acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
The only way that Congress can prove to the American people that we
believe that Black lives matter is for all of us--Republicans and
Democrats alike--to take legislative action, to stop police from
brutalizing and killing Black people--not tomorrow, not next year. Now.
Madam Speaker, in the name of Michael Brown and the citizens of
Ferguson, Missouri, let's demilitarize police departments.
In the name of Breonna Taylor and Kathryn Johnston, let's ban no-
knock warrants.
In the name of George Floyd and Eric Garner, let's ban chokeholds and
make it easier for police departments to fire bad cops.
In the name of Tamir Rice, let's enact a national registry of bad
cops.
Madam Speaker, for the people of the United States demanding action,
let's pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act now.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I would just point out, the chairman of
the committee said that Democrats rejected Senator Scott's bill
yesterday. Not all of them. Not all of them. A couple of them voted for
it--bipartisan support. In fact, that is the only proposal that has
bipartisan support right now--Senator Scott's bill. In fact, it has
tri-partisan support because one of the Independents in the Senate
voted for it. So it is not accurate to try to characterize Senator
Scott's legislation the way the chairman did.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
Mr. HUDSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time and for his tremendous work on this issue.
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed. I am disappointed by the fact that
we had an opportunity today to make real bipartisan and meaningful
reform. Yet, that is not the bill that is before us today.
I am disappointed the Democrat leadership seems more interested in
passing a bill through the House than having actual solutions signed
into law.
And I am disappointed the bill before us today punishes good police
officers.
Madam Speaker, this is very personal to me. One month ago, my
community lost one of our own. George Floyd was born in Fayetteville,
and members of his family still live in our community. I was honored to
be asked to speak at his memorial service, where I promised his family
and our community that I would work to create real and meaningful
reform.

[[Page H2456]]

After listening to many leaders in our community, as well as talking
to many here in Congress, it became clear that there is a lot that
Republican and Democrats agree on: We agree on banning chokeholds,
increasing police accountability, and information-sharing, improving
training, reforming no-knock warrants, and increasing the use of body
cameras.
The reality of our divided government is that for any legislation to
become law, it has to pass the Democrat-controlled House, the
Republican-controlled Senate, and be signed by the Republican
President. The Democrats introduced this legislation with no input from
Republicans. It jammed it through the committee without accepting any
constructive input or amendments.
Now, many Republican amendments would have strengthened this bill--
like increasing the penalty for lynching and blocking unions from
protecting bad cops. This bill also removes qualified immunity for
police officers. That means any police officer can be dragged into
civil court by any disgruntled person they ever come in contact with.
Madam Speaker, we all agree bad cops shouldn't be able to hide behind
qualified immunity. Representative Ben Cline and I introduced an
amendment that would have earned the support of a majority of this
House and would have solved this problem, but the Democrats wouldn't
allow it. Now, why would they do that?
Madam Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle may have the votes to
pass this measure in the House, but this legislation is already dead on
arrival in the Senate, and the President would never sign it.
They would say to the families who mourn the loss of life, they would
say to the people who march for justice, that 100 percent of nothing is
better than 80 percent of what they propose in this bill. They want you
to believe the failure to get real reform is the thought of the
Republicans when they have shut us out of the process, and they blocked
us from having an open debate in the Senate.
Wake up, America. The Democrats in Congress hope you aren't smart
enough to see the truth. Wake up and demand that your elected officials
work together to get you the reform that all people of good will
demand. Tell them to stop this charade while there is still time.
Madam Speaker, we owe it to the memory of George Floyd and to good
police officers who risk their lives every day to protect us. I am
committed to continuing to fight for meaningful reform and for healing
in our communities, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to stop the political games and answer the cries heard across this
country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Mr. Hudson is my friend. I think the world of Mr. Hudson, but Mr.
Hudson wasn't in the markup or the hearing of the Committee on the
Judiciary on this bill. And what they would have seen is what I saw and
what I put into the Hill publication today.
I saw shams. I saw ruses. I saw them bringing up antifa. I saw them
bringing up ``Russia hoax,'' bringing up Michael Flynn. They brought up
abortion. They didn't talk about George Floyd. They didn't talk about
attacks on African Americans. They didn't talk about justice and making
it better. They brought up sham issues to try to divert the American
people's eyes to what is the Trump train propaganda machine. And they
were on it.
They brought up the sister of a slain officer in Oakland thinking
that they were going to change the narrative to the protesters and,
really, the rioters. Well, it turned out it was a boogaloo member;
people who are white, many are white supremacist, and they want civil
war in this country for who killed that officer and then within a week
killed a sheriff in Santa Cruz. You don't ever hear them mention
boogaloo. They bring up antifa. And there is nothing about antifa to be
involved in any of these protests. It is unfortunate what we have seen.
This is a good bill. Its time is now. It collects data on bad cops so
other police departments will know about it. It collects data on the
use of deadly force. It prohibits chokeholds. It makes reforms on
deadly-force usage. It sets up an independent system of judgment on
officers where there won't be home cooking and hand-in-glove law, as it
has been currently, and there will be better training: Racial bias and
de-escalation.
They brought up defunding the police, that Congress has not brought
up defunding the police. That is their ruse. It is ``re-fund,'' if
anything, but it is not defund. It is embarrassing. I was embarrassed
to see the Republicans did it. It was a shame on the lives of George
Floyd, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, all the other people in Memphis--
Steven Atkins and Darrius Stewart--whose lives have been cut short by
improper activities and deadly force by police officers.
Police are mostly good, but the ones that aren't need to be brought
to justice.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Ohio.
Madam Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in voicing my great
concern with the substance of this bill and the broken process by which
it was produced. As we have all agreed, the issue of updating and
reforming the way in which our communities are policed and
strengthening the relationship between those brave Americans who serve
us in uniform and the communities they serve are matters of critical
importance.
The people of this country expect and deserve the Members of this
body to rise to this occasion and work together to find common ground
on solutions that will preserve the civil liberties of all people and
protect and honor the legitimacy of law enforcement. These are not
mutually exclusive pursuits.
Madam Speaker, at our hearing in the Committee on the Judiciary 2
weeks ago, you heard a little bit about that.
It is interesting the lens by which we see this. Anybody who watched
that, I think they could see that we all heard moving testimony.
George Floyd's brother, Philonise, was there. He testified in a very
moving way. Their family attorney was there, and a panel of experts
that we all heard from.
At that committee hearing, I, and all my Republican colleagues in the
markup that followed, expressed our sincere desire to work together and
find common ground with the Democrat majority to solve these problems.
We all agreed on the core reform issues.
We talked a lot about transparency and improving training and
improving termination ability for those rare individuals who serve in
law enforcement and violate the law, and the legitimacy that upholds
the character of our legal system.
We could have built consensus around those and other key ideas to
restore faith in our institutions and build trust in our communities.
But, unfortunately, just 10 days after introduction of the bill, the
majority marked up the final version that we are voting on today
without any opportunity for input from Republican Members. They blocked
us out of the room, and then denied us, as our ranking member, Jim
Jordan, just said, they denied a dozen amendments--good-faith
amendments--that we brought to that process. What a tragedy that is.
Madam Speaker, you have to ask yourself, because my constituents are
asking themselves, people back home are asking why. Why would they do
that? Why would our colleagues on the other side shut us out of the
room, when everybody acknowledges this is a real problem, that we need
bipartisan solutions to it.
My good friend, Senator Tim Scott, explained it well yesterday in his
epic speech on the floor of the Senate after the Democrats on the other
side spiked and killed his bill. He explained the process: That he went
to Chuck Schumer, the leader over there, and the other Democrats, he
went to each of them individually to find out what their concerns were
with this bill to figure out how to fix it.

[[Page H2457]]

He offered first, in good faith, five amendments to the bill, then
20. Then he said he would do a manager's amendment, basically to change
much of the substance of his bill just to get something over the lines
so we could solve the problem. And you know what happened? They gave
him the stiff arm, to use our football metaphor.
Why is that? Because they want to preserve this as a wedge issue for
the elections in the fall. That is why.
And Tim Scott said it better than we could--and I commend every
American to watch the video of his speech on the floor. This reality
leaves us at an impasse today, and it makes perfectly clear that this
bill in its current form goes too far. As Congressman Jordan has
explained, it ties the hands of American law enforcement, jeopardizes
the safety of every American. We have to oppose it.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do so, and it is a shame it
has come to this.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You have heard a lot of errant nonsense on the floor. But it must not
go unrebutted.
Ms. Bass, the chairperson of the Black Caucus and the chairperson of
our subcommittee talked personally to the Republican leader, Mr.
McCarthy, and got nowhere. The Committee on the Judiciary's staff
talked to the Republican staff of the Committee on the Judiciary and
got nowhere. The Republican amendments that Mr. Jordan advanced at the
markup, his wonderful amendments, included antifa, the Seattle
autonomous zone, stripping out the entire underlying legislation,
defunding police departments, and adding a death penalty to
antilynching legislation passed by the House.
Of course, we wouldn't accept these amendments. They couldn't utter
the phrase ``Black Lives Matter,'' and could barely engage the subject
of police reform. Instead, their amendments--and I have given you about
half of them just listed here--were errant nonsense, off-topic, dealing
with imaginary things like antifa, and completely negating the entire
purpose of the bill. They weren't interested in ``Black Lives Matter.''
They weren't interested in police reform. They were interested in pure
demagoguery. Of course, we would not accept their amendments.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Cicilline).

{time} 1400

Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., visited my
district in April of 1967. Almost a year to the day he was killed, Dr.
King told Rhode Islanders:

I haven't lost faith in the future. But I never intend to
adjust myself to the madness of militarism or racial
inequality.

More than 50 years later, we are still fighting the madness of racial
inequality.
I believe that all of us in this Chamber are here for a reason. It is
our solemn duty to acknowledge the sins of the past 400 years and begin
to repair the soul of America.
We can build a better, more just country.
Pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, because Black lives
matter.
Make the critical reforms that we need to do right now.
End the chokehold. End racial profiling. Demilitarize police
departments. Hold bad police officers accountable.
When we do this, we can begin to rebuild trust between the police and
the community.
Colleagues, do not be obstructionists. Stand with us in this historic
moment. Set aside politics. Stop living in fear of the President's
Twitter account. Remember the oath you took to your constituents and to
our country.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before yielding, I just point out, I can't believe the chairman of
the Judiciary Committee would utter such a statement on the House
floor, but he said, ``Imaginary things like antifa.'' They are not
imaginary; they are real. And if you don't believe me, go talk to Andy
Ngo, the journalist in Portland who was attacked by antifa, who the
President of the United States designated as a terrorist organization.
And to have the chair of the Judiciary Committee on the House floor
say these words: ``Imaginary things like antifa''? They are far from
imaginary. And there are people in every major city in this country who
know that, and yet the chair of the Judiciary Committee just made that
statement. That is scary.
So when we say we weren't consulted and they talk about--when you
have that kind of attitude, we had good, thoughtful amendments in that
committee. No, no, no, we can't deal with it, because their attitude is
antifa is imaginary. It is far from that. Go ask that journalist in
Portland, who just a year ago was beaten up by these individuals. That
is ridiculous.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, despite what you may hear and read from
the majority, there is actually a lot of common ground between the
legislation that we are considering today here and the legislation that
I am an original cosponsor of recently introduced by Senator Tim Scott
and here by Pete Stauber. We ought to pass those provisions that we
agree on and continue to discuss and debate the things we don't.
Last week in the Judiciary Committee, as has been mentioned, we
offered a dozen reasonable, thoughtful amendments to improve this bill.
But every single one was rejected by the majority, every single one.
Improving police-community relations is a critical issue that we
should be working on together to solve, which could have a real and
lasting positive impact on preventing future senseless acts of
violence.
We should also be working together to honor the memories of all of
those lost in the recent unrest, including George Floyd and David
Underwood and Breonna Taylor and David Dorn. Doing so would serve as a
beginning to a healing process to emerge a stronger, more unified
Nation.
Madam Speaker, I represent Ohio's First Congressional District, which
includes much of the city of Cincinnati.
Back in 2002, following protests and civil unrest over the shooting
of a young man, the death of a young man named Timothy Thomas, the
city, police representatives, community leaders, and local and Federal
officials entered into something called the Collaborative Agreement, to
build positive, constructive relationships between the police
department and the communities that they serve.
The Collaborative Agreement implemented many of the reforms that we
are discussing today: Revised use-of-force policies and mandatory
training; emphasizing de-escalation procedures; increased transparency;
and independent citizen complaint authority to investigate allegations
against police officers; and use of automatic body cameras, among other
reforms.
The results haven't been perfect, but we have seen a dramatic
improvement in local police-community relations. Also arrests and
serious crimes have decreased across the city. And, notably, excessive
use of force and violence against police officers has decreased.
These positive results are not due to heavy-handed mandates from the
Federal Government. Rather, the changes are more attributable to the
grassroots collaborative process, which required everyone involved to
put aside their political agendas and work together. Both police and
the neighborhoods that they serve had to reach out to each other and
come together to address concerns and problem areas.
One of my suggestions to improve this bill calls for a study of
Cincinnati's Collaborative Agreement, and other similar agreements, to
explore what worked well, what didn't, and what lessons can help other
communities across the Nation.
At the same time, we must recognize the important work law
enforcement officers do to keep our communities safe. That is why I
suggest that we also focus on supporting those police officers who
dedicate their lives to protecting our communities.
Specifically, I propose that we add retired police officers who are
killed while serving in public or private security roles, like Sergeant
David Dorn, to the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, which
provides death and education benefits to the families of officers
killed in the line of duty.

[[Page H2458]]

Madam Speaker, these and other proposals from my colleagues are
reasonable and would improve the legislation that we are considering
today.
I hope that Democrats and Republicans here in the House can work
together with the Senate to get meaningful legislation to the
President, just as we did with the coronavirus legislation, before
another life is lost.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, we agree on some things; nothing meaningful. The
Republicans agree on studies, not on action. They agree on nothing that
will add accountability to the police, nothing that will prevent police
brutality, nothing that contributes in any way to Black Lives Matter.
They will not agree to banning chokeholds. They will not agree to
changing the mens rea statutes so we can hold brutal officers
accountable. They will not agree to banning no-knock warrants in drug
cases. They will not agree to ending qualified immunity.
They will agree to studies. They will agree to gestures. They will
agree to shams. Their whole approach is a sham, because they agree to
nothing meaningful, and they claim to be meaningful.
Their claim is a sham. They will do nothing that will add
accountability, nothing that will save one life, nothing that will put
one brutal policeman in jail. Nothing.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
thank him for his stalwart support for justice in policing. Thank you
so much for bringing this legislation to the floor, to you, Mr. Nadler,
members of the Judiciary Committee, and the Congressional Black Caucus.
Madam Speaker, exactly one month ago, George Floyd spoke his final
words, ``I can't breathe,'' and changed the course of history in our
Nation. I will never forget that, nor will many others. I will also
never forget his calling out for his mama right there at the end.
Since that horrific day in Minneapolis, Americans from every walk of
life and corner of the country have been marching, protesting, and
demanding that this moment of national agony become a moment of
national action.
Today, by passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, the House
is honoring his life and the lives of all killed by police brutality by
saying never again and taking action.
The Congress and the country are well served by the leadership of the
Congressional Black Caucus, the conscience of the Congress, as we call
it, with John Lewis and so many other leaders, which has been
developing these reforms contained in this legislation for decades, 49
years to be exact.
We are blessed to be led by CBC Chair Karen Bass, who brings 47 years
of leadership advocating for an end to police brutality. She brings
extraordinary gentility, grace, and strength to this fight.
As you know, Madam Speaker, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act
will fundamentally transform the culture of policing to address
systemic racism, curb police brutality, and save lives, as it puts an
end to shielding police from accountability.
We don't paint all police with the same brush. But for those who need
to be painted with that brush, we need to take the action contained in
this bill.
This legislation contains bold, unprecedented reforms, including
banning chokeholds. People say, ``Well, why can't you compromise with
the other side?'' Well, they don't ban chokeholds. We ban chokeholds.
So are we supposed to come up with a number of chokeholds we will agree
with? No. We ban chokeholds. Stopping no-knock warrants on drug
offenses. Ending the court-created qualified immunity doctrine that is
a barrier to holding police officers accountable for wrongful conduct.
Our distinguished chairman enumerated all of these things just now.
Combatting racial profiling, mandating data collection, including body
and dashboard cameras, strengthening independent investigations of
police departments, creating a publicly accessible national police
misconduct registry.
Publicly accessible, that is what the Senate bill does not do. We
will take the data and keep it to ourselves? Well, what is the use?
And establishing strong new standards for policing.
This week, a coalition of more than 135 leading civil and human
rights groups sent a letter stating their opposition to the Senate
bill. We have our bill; they have their bill.
And this is what 135 leading civil rights groups had to say:

The Senate act is an inadequate response to the decades of
pain, hardship, and devastation that Black people have and
continue to endure as a result of systemic racism and lax
policies that fail to hold police accountable for misconduct.
This bill falls woefully short of the comprehensive reform
needed to address the current policing crisis and achieve
meaningful law enforcement accountability.
It is deeply problematic to meet this moment with a menial
incremental approach that offers more funding to police and
few policies to effectively address the constant loss of
Black lives at the hands of police.
Passing watered-down legislation that fails to remedy the
actual harms resulting in the loss of life is a moral
statement that is inconsistent with a genuine belief that
Black lives matter.
Further, any attempt to amend or salvage the Senate act
will only serve to check the box and claim reform, when in
actuality no reform has occurred to combat police misconduct
and to protect Black lives.

135 leading civil and human rights organizations said that.
House Democrats hoped to work in a bipartisan way to create
meaningful change to end the epidemic of racial injustice and police
brutality. However, it is disappointing that the Senate GOP has ignored
the voices of hundreds of thousands of people peacefully calling out
for justice and progress, day in and day out, week in and week out, for
the past month.

The Senate proposal mimics words of real reform but takes no action
to make any difference. It is inadequate and unworthy of support.
During this moment of anguish, which we want to turn into action, it
would be a moral failure to accept anything less than transformational
change.
But it is clear that the White House has zero interest in real
change. Yesterday, the White House went so far as to issue a veto
threat, stating that the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would
deter good people from pursuing careers in law enforcement.
No, Mr. President, good people are pursuing careers in law
enforcement. Banning chokeholds is not going to deter good people from
pursuing careers in law enforcement. That is a White House concern.
Hundreds of people are dying. Vetoing this will make the White House
what? Ignoring of this epidemic?
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is a bill that American
people are insisting on, that this moment in history demands. And what
a shameful, bad-faith act to dismiss the will of the public out of
hand.
Two weeks ago, Philonise Floyd, the brother of George Floyd,
testified so beautifully and powerfully before Mr. Nadler's committee,
the Judiciary Committee, on this legislation. He said that day: ``The
people marching in the streets are telling you enough is enough. Be the
leaders that this country, this world, needs.'' That was his challenge
to us.

{time} 1415

Then, he said: ``George's name means something. . . . If his death
ends up changing the world for the better, and I think it will''--I
think it has--``then he died as he lived. It is on you to make sure his
death is not in vain.''
Today, with this bill, we have the opportunity and the obligation to
ensure that George Floyd's death and the death of so many are not in
vain. Their lives matter, Black lives matter.
Madam Speaker, I urge a strong bipartisan vote on the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act. Justice is for George by passing this bill.
Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for all of his
leadership and work on these issues, not only today and this past month
but over time. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I agree with what was just

[[Page H2459]]

said. This is here to talk about justice, and justice is supposed to be
blind to everything, race, socioeconomic status, blind to politics.
It was interesting just a few minutes ago that when confronted with
an amendment that they didn't like, they chose to deal with their
collective bargaining agreements on things that actually do pander and
stop us from getting at the bad actors in the police departments from
going on. The Democrats chose not to talk about it, to walk away and
obfuscate and not talk about it.
That was an amendment, frankly, that the chairman didn't list because
the chairman understands that that is a problem that needs to be worked
on, and we could have, but we didn't.
The bill does not do, in fact, what it is said to do. Some of the
provisions of this bill actually will hurt the police officers and the
police in our community. It doesn't help; it actually hurts. There are
many things that do help, and we can work on those.
The Speaker of the House just said that passing a watered-down bill
is wrong. Well, I will tell you what else is wrong. It is coming to the
floor of this House and saying passing this bill will change anything
because it will not. And stopping the Senate bill from going forward
and having amendment and having process is wrong as well because the
only way the two bodies will come together and find the common ground
and denominator to actually pass a bill--I have been on this floor
before, many times, having to remind our colleagues that simply coming
to this floor and passing something doesn't make it law.
In this case, it is more important than ever to know that the Senate
is working on the Republican side because they are a Republican
majority. We are a Democratic majority. You are going to pass a
Democratic bill. That is fine. The Senate will pass a Republican bill.
But then you go to conference. But when you poison the discussion like
we are doing today, that is wrong.
Justice, as I have seen in my home State when I have a DA who is
charging police officers before investigations are over--Paul Howard
needs to recuse himself. Why? Because good people are being harmed.
The Speaker actually said, Madam Speaker, that good police officers
want to do their jobs. That is correct. Yet, right now, the city of
Atlanta is seeing a large increase in officers from the Atlanta Police
Department applying anywhere else but Fulton County because they don't
think they can get backed up. That is what the problem of this bill is.
This is not something that we just simply should take lightly.
Justice for George Floyd should be the first and foremost thing, and
not just George Floyd, anyone in this case.
There are areas that we can work on, but simply putting things
together, throwing it together, and then having the obstruction of the
Senate coupled with the bill in the House that cannot get signed is
simply talking to these cameras and making a point that nothing else is
going to get done.
That is the travesty, Madam Speaker. The travesty is thinking this
actually does something. Watered-down bills, not watered-down bills but
bills that are not allowed to go to conference and actually work the
will of these two bodies, one controlled by Republicans, one controlled
by Democrats, is simply wrong. We did it in the FIRST STEP Act, and
some of those very same civil rights groups that spoke against the
FIRST STEP Act came around when they saw that we were honestly
negotiating to an end.
So as we move forward, I would urge ``no'' on this. But I would urge
that the destruction stop, and it doesn't start here. So we all need to
help and put justice first for everyone.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke referred to
the collective bargaining provision. He apparently hasn't read the
bill. That provision is in the bill. I suggest he read the bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, my friends on the other side of the
aisle are consistently being persistent in the language of why process
for them is more important than saving lives. I answer the question
with a little book called the Constitution of the United States, which
on this day we hope that we will make it holier and more potent for the
large numbers of African American men and women who have seen the brunt
of racial profiling and police brutality.
Now, let me be very clear. In the opening of this Constitution, it
tracks the language that says we are created for a more perfect union.
Centuries later, Dr. Martin Luther King asked the question of why we
can't wait to be allowed to be full citizens in this Nation as African
Americans. He also said now is the time.
So when a Member asked me about the moment of this bill, this day, I
said: There are few seismic moments on the floor of the House. There
are few catastrophic earthquake moments that change lives and save
lives. Today, we cannot wait. Amadou Diallo could not wait more than
20, 30 years ago. Now, we have legislation that will be a significant
civil rights moment in our history.

I am very pleased to have introduced the Law Enforcement Trust and
Integrity Act with my colleagues that does help police, that does
require the accreditation of 18,000 police departments. Maybe if the
officers in Minneapolis had been trained in human decency and the
stopping of excessive force and the duty to intervene, not only would
George Floyd's life been saved, but many others in times before.
But we have a bill that says that you have to require something. And
when I walked amongst the neighbors of George Floyd that grew up in
Cuney Homes near Jack Yates, they surrounded me, even in the midst of
COVID-19, and said: What is this bill going to do? Is it going to do
something?
This bill provides a direct requirement for accreditation, the
requirement to professionalize police. And, yes, it is racial
profiling, and it has teeth in it because it includes a prohibition in
profiling based on ethnicity, national origin, religion, and gender.
And it creates a cause of action by the Attorney General of any who are
injured. We have never had that before. And, yes, it adds a
modification of rollback on qualified immunity.
But I say to my friends, in rolling back qualified immunity, you have
due process. You are in the courthouse.
It limits the military hardware disbursements, use of force, and it
professionalizes the police.
Now, I want to answer the question of Philonise Floyd. He doesn't
want his brother to be on his shirt; he wants justice.
As I conclude, Madam Speaker, I just want to answer his daughter's
point. His daughter, Gianna, said: ``My daddy changed the world.''
We are changing the world. We can't wait, and now is the time--not
process, but reality, and making a bill that changes civil rights in
this Nation.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
bill.
While I have many major concerns with this attempt to federalize
State and local law enforcement, I would like to specifically address
the issue of qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity protects police officers, teachers, and social
workers from civil liability when performing their duties in a proper
manner. Should this bill become law, it would completely eliminate
qualified immunity for law enforcement.
Now, I know that many of my colleagues on the other side, along with
many well-meaning folks around the country, think that that is a good
idea, but they have been fed a false narrative. So, let me break a few
myths surrounding qualified immunity and explain why it is so important
to protect it.
Myth number one: If you are a good police officer, you have nothing
to worry about. That is absolutely not true. Imagine this scenario, and
this is one that occurs every day in departments across America. You
are attempting to make an arrest. The suspect physically resists
arrest. The suspect is now fighting the police, and the officer uses
empty-hand techniques to secure him. But the suspect is injured while
being lawfully and properly secured.
The officer has done nothing wrong, properly followed the law,
followed department policy and agency training,

[[Page H2460]]

did everything by the book. If this bill becomes law, he will still be
sued individually, despite doing everything by the book, and that is
just wrong.
I spent 41 years of my life in law enforcement, including 12 years as
sheriff. Every single day I went to work, I knew and was willing to put
my life on the line for my community. It is what I signed up for, and
it is what every officer in this country signs up for.
However, I shouldn't be asked to put my wife's future and my
children's future in that breach also. That is not what I signed up
for, not when I properly followed the law, followed my agency's
policies, followed my training to the letter, but I could still be
sued. That is not part of the deal.
Myth number two: Qualified immunity is always granted by the courts.
This also is not true. In fact, courts only grant qualified immunity to
officers 57 percent of the time. In the majority of the cases where
qualified immunity was granted, it was determined that officers did not
violate anyone's constitutional rights.
Under current law, even if the court grants the officer qualified
immunity, the plaintiff can still sue the agency for alleged
ineffective training or policies.
Myth number three: Qualified immunity gives officers free rein on the
job. That is absolutely false. It is not true. In order for qualified
immunity to apply, an officer must have followed the law,
followed agency policy, followed all the proper training. If he
violates any one of those, he is on his own and open to civil
litigation.

Madam Speaker, law enforcement is too dangerous of a 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 situation whether a
suspect is pulling out a gun or a cell phone. They never wrestled a man
to the ground who is fighting like hell to evade arrest.
Police officers don't get to watch a video in slow motion over and
over again to figure out what to do. That is why qualified immunity
exists. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court just confirmed it.
We cannot be so eager to make major policing reforms on the Federal
level that we overcorrect and prevent good officers on the street from
being able to do their jobs. We should not put our communities at that
kind of risk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Madam Speaker, I want to invite my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to reconsider this legislation. Not one single
point will destroy the bedrock of law enforcement in this country, and
I know there are Members across the aisle that understand that because
they have been there; they have done that; they have made those
arrests.
I ask you to listen to them and vote ``no'' on this legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, the gentleman stated a moment ago, I think
he said 60 or 65 percent of police officers who got qualified immunity
did not violate the constitutional rights of the victims. Well, he is
conceding, in other words, that in 40 or 30 percent, or whatever it is,
of the time when qualified immunity is granted and holds officers
unaccountable, they have violated the constitutional rights of the
victims. That is one of the reasons why we must change the doctrine of
qualified immunity.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Richmond).

{time} 1430

Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me just quickly reply to what I think the big difference is
between the two sides. We just heard an eloquent argument about the
financial impact to families if a police officer loses his job, that
they have loss of income. What we are talking about is the loss of love
and support both financially and emotionally to a family when they lose
their father or their mother or their child. So while one side looks at
this as a purely financial or economic problem, we look at it as life
or death.
I also heard them talk about the Senate bill. I won't even go into
the Senate bill. It doesn't ban chokeholds. It doesn't end no-knock
warrants. That bill has about as much teeth as a newborn baby.
But what I will say, Madam Speaker, is that America is burning, and
my colleagues can't see it or they don't want to see it because of
blind loyalty to a self-absorbed leader who lacks the character or
concern to care.
But America is not only burning; America is also weeping. She is
weeping for the victims of excessive force by those sworn to protect
and serve. She is crying for her American leadership to man up to meet
this moment and to write in the laws of this country once and for all
that Black lives do matter.
She is calling on us to act, not to cower to the moment, be wilfully
ignorant, or just deny the ugly facts. Now is not the time for the
quintessential coward or the political hypocrite.
America is crying and America is weeping. If you open your hearts and
your ears and get past the purposeful irrelevant noise, you will then
hear that she is begging for help. Just listen. America is crying for
help just like George Floyd did.
So the real question today is: Will you pretend you didn't see those
horrific 8 minutes and 46 seconds? Will you cower to the white
nationalists or will you continue to only protect life until it is
born?
In church, we are taught that weeping may endure for the night, but
joy cometh in the morning. Colleagues, today we will determine how long
the night lasts, how long the mourning will last, the weeping will
last. How long before we see the joy of the morning? How long before we
make this a more perfect Union?
It is time for results, not rhetoric.
And to the Members on the other side who may have African-American
children, let me just tell you the difference really quickly.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Louisiana an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Speaker, let's assume two kids go out at night to
the school dance. When the Black mother is waiting by the phone and the
phone rings and the child says, ``Well, there was a problem,'' and both
kids say, ``We see police lights. The police are on the way,'' the
White mother and parent is going to think help is on the way and feel
relieved; the Black mother is going to get more concerned and say,
``Just do whatever they tell you, baby. Just come home. No matter how
much they degrade you, just come home.''
There is a difference of policing in this country, and we are just
asking to fix it.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. King), who, for 28 years, has served his
fine constituents.
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 7120.
The brutal murder of George Floyd and the protests and demonstrations
since then highlight the racial issues which still afflict our Nation
and which deserve thoughtful discussion and debate. I want to use my
time today to reject the premise of systemic police racism, which is
the genesis of today's legislation.
I say the opposite: No one has done more to protect all lives than
the police. Take New York City, where thousands of protesters have
regularly taken to the streets to demonstrate against the NYPD even
though, in the past 25 years, the policies and actions of the NYPD have
literally saved tens of thousands of lives of people of color. The city
has gone from more than 2,000 murders a year, with a great majority of
them being African American, to less than 300.
Last year, NYPD officers fired their weapon 35 times. That is 35
times in a police force of 36,000 in a city of more than 8 million, and
millions more commuters and tourists. Five African Americans were
killed by the NYPD in the entire year, four of whom had a gun or knife.
You won't hear this on the House floor from the other side today, but
nationally, more Whites are killed by police than African Americans
each year, both in total numbers and in proportion to their encounters
with police.

[[Page H2461]]

Supporting this legislation, which targets the police, might make
people feel better about themselves in the short run but would result
in more crime and murder in the minority communities, which already
suffer from inadequate healthcare, housing, and educational
opportunity.
Just in the past month, we have seen shootings increase dramatically
in cities such as Chicago and New York, where shootings are at their
highest level in almost 25 years.
It is time to be honest. It is not a peaceful protest when businesses
are wrecked and looted, when rocks and bricks and Molotov cocktails are
thrown at cops and more than 300 police officers are injured, as we are
seeing right now in New York.
No, police are not perfect--none of us are, that is for sure--but
they do outstanding work. Just last month, this House, under Democratic
leadership, passed the HEROES Act, recognizing the great work of the
police in combating COVID-19. How things change in one month.
My father was in the NYPD for more than 30 years. I have been to too
many wakes and funerals of cops who have made the ultimate sacrifice,
laying down their lives for others.

Police deserve more than this legislation, which targets them for
society's ills. It is time to stand with the men and women in blue who
put their lives on the line for all the rest of us every day of the
year. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries).
Mr. JEFFRIES. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chair for
yielding and for his great leadership.
Madam Speaker, we have a national problem here in America of police
violence, police brutality, and the police use of excessive force. It
requires a national solution. That is why Congress should pass the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Here in America, every Black mother and every Black father has to
have the talk with their child about what to do when approached by the
police because any encounter can turn deadly, not because of criminal
conduct but because of the color of their skin.
Just ask the family of Amadou Diallo, the family of Sean Bell, the
family of Eric Garner, the family of Tamir Rice, the family of Walter
Scott, the family of Oscar Grant, the family of Stephon Clark, the
family of Breonna Taylor. Just ask the family of George Floyd, who
narrated his own death for 8 minutes and 46 seconds and called for his
mama.
It is a difficult conversation. I had to have the talk with my two
sons, and I knew what to say word for word because my father had the
same talk with me decades ago, and nothing has changed.
So all of us in this Chamber, whether you are a Democrat or
Republican, should want to make sure that people like our good friend
and colleague Cedric Richmond shouldn't have to have the same talk with
his beautiful Black son, 6-year-old little Ced.
We have an opportunity to change things today, and that is what we
should do. To the protesters: We hear you; we see you; we are you. We
are sick and tired of being sick and tired.
America is a great country. We have come a long way. We still have a
long way to go.
We are tired of police violence in a country where the Declaration of
Independence promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We are tired of police violence in a country where the Pledge of
Allegiance promises liberty and justice for all.
We are tired of police violence in a country where the Constitution
promises equal protection under the law.
We are sick and tired of being sick and tired. That is why we should
act.
It is time to end racial profiling, time to criminalize the
chokehold, time to demilitarize the police, time to end qualified
immunity, time for a national standard on the excessive use of force,
time for a database on brutal officers, time to expand the Justice
Department Office of Civil Rights' jurisdiction, and time for the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act so we can continue our country's
long, necessary, and majestic march toward a more perfect Union.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
to control the balance of the Republican time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Omar). Without objection, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Biggs) will control the balance of the Republican
time.
There was no objection.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko.)
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Black lives matter. My two grandsons, who are Black, their lives
matter. I don't want anything bad to happen to them.
My life matters. White lives matter. Hispanic lives matter. Asian
lives matter. Native American lives matter. Quite frankly, all lives
matter. Police officers' lives matter, too.
What happened to George Floyd was terrible, and bad cops or cops that
do bad things have to be held accountable. But we have to recognize
that the vast majority of law enforcement officers are good, honest
people trying to help our community and protect our community.
We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes.
We need a bipartisan bill because you guys know, I know you are
passionate, I know you believe in this, but you also know that this
bill that you are pushing through without negotiating with Republicans
on is not going to go anywhere.
So, if you actually want something done, you have to negotiate with
Republicans because, after all, they have a majority in the Senate, and
we have a Republican President.

I ask that we work on a bill that not only holds police officers that
do bad things accountable, but that does not undermine law enforcement
so that they can do what they need to do to protect our society.
I have talked to numerous law enforcement officers and police chiefs
in my district. All of them, every single one of them, said there are
portions of this Democrat bill that would undermine their ability to
protect us in our communities.
Now, there are other parts of this bill that I support, that
Republicans support, that the President could sign. So why don't we try
to unite on the things that we can agree on?
It has been said before that in Judiciary Committee none of the
Republican amendments were--you voted them all down. Democrats voted
them all down. And then Senator Scott said that he offered 20
amendments to the Democrats in the Senate, and they rejected them.
So, if we really want to get something done--and we should get
something done--let's try to work together instead of pushing through a
bill that you haven't reached out to Republicans to negotiate on.
I also am very dismayed by what is happening around our country. I
know people are upset, and I applaud the people who are peaceful in
their protests.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Arizona an
additional 30 seconds.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I ask all Members, both Republican and
Democrat, to call on the people who are violent out in our streets,
people who are looting, people who are tearing down statues, people who
are setting up autonomous zones--in the one in Seattle they killed
somebody there--please, let's try to heal our country together.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I support this bill because Black lives matter.
Gianna Floyd, the 6-year-old daughter of George Floyd, said, ``My
daddy changed the world.'' We are here to prove that she is right.

{time} 1445

I spoke to an African American member of my community 2 weeks ago who
told me he feels safe twice a day: when he wakes up in his own house
and after work when he comes into his own house.
He said, ``In between, people look at me, at the nice car I worked
hard to

[[Page H2462]]

buy, and they think that I stole it. I have police officers often
running my plates and then realize I don't have any warrants, and they
drive off.''
This member of our community is a police captain. So if a Black
police captain feels that way, imagine how people in the Black
community who are not in law enforcement feel.
We can change the world with these necessary police reforms, because
Black lives do matter.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Mitchell).
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today disappointed and frustrated
with this legislation and the dysfunction of this legislative body.
Police work is vital, sometimes thankless, sometimes dangerous.
My oldest son is a police officer, and we talked about these issues
long before the events of the last several weeks. He recently had to
put on a vest and police multiple times, protests where, Madam Speaker,
I prayed to God they would not turn violent and someone would get hurt.
So it is near and dear to my heart, as well as some Members on the
other side of the aisle.
It is not an economic issue. It is an issue of America, it is an
issue of rights, and meaningful change is needed now.
All across this country, our constituents, our neighbors, and, yes,
my family, are begging us to step forward and lead, to come together
for reform.
We see these demonstrations in our cities and towns across this
Nation, and we all agree reform is needed, yet yesterday in the Senate,
constructive legislation proposed by Senator Scott was blocked by
Democrats despite a commitment to full debate on the floor and
amendments.
We apparently don't want to legislate, do we?
I have actively reached out for substantive discussion on this bill
with the sponsor to offer input and support, to no avail.
I spoke with Ms. Bass today, and she hopes maybe we will set up a
work group, but not until we vote on this Democrat-developed bill,
without the ability to even consider a single amendment.
Heaven forbid we legislate.
Senator Scott was correct in his speech yesterday: the issue is about
not what action we take, but about who takes and can claim the action.
My colleagues in the other party are so focused upon election
messaging, they overlook some critical things.
We have needed to address these issues for decades. Even when a
Democrat was in the White House and the Democrats controlled both
bodies of this legislature, nothing was done.
This issue will not go away. I think we agree on that. It is staying.
Lacking action, this issue will become more heated and divisive in
our communities across this Nation.
What do you say we all simply focus on doing our current jobs rather
than worrying about the November election?
What do you say, how about we actually legislate to achieve effective
reform instead of messaging, because messaging right now is a disaster
for this Nation?
We should all in this body feel ashamed for taking up space and time
when we are not solving the problem.
God help us all.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the assertion that we have
not been willing to work with the Republicans on this important
legislation. Allow me to set the record straight in detail on where we
are and how we got here.
We introduced a comprehensive policing reform bill 18 days ago. We
explained to our colleagues in the minority that we initiated the
process by developing comprehensive legislation with Senators Booker
and Harris as well as with members of our caucus. We also explained the
importance of moving quickly given the moment we were in as a Nation.
Since that time, we have indicated to the minority that if they are
interested in developing legislation that they could support, we needed
to understand how they wanted to change the bill and whether those
changes would lead them to support the bill.
Chair Bass has reached out to the minority leader and to Senator
Scott, and we have reached out to the minority over the course of the
last 10 days.
We held a hearing 2 weeks ago in which the minority invited three
witnesses.
The minority did not share a single amendment with us before last
week's markup. The minority refused our offer to review and work with
them on specific amendments they offered, that we indicated we could
support if we had the opportunity to review and discuss before we go to
the floor.
That is their right, of course, but in my experience, when a Member
would like the majority to support their amendments, they would
ordinarily share the text with us in advance. That did not happen here.
I would also note that some of what we saw is in the bill now, and we
have not received a single outreach regarding this important matter
from either the Trump White House or the Trump Department of Justice.
Again, in my experience, if there were a serious and good-faith
effort to enact legislation, the White House would seek to work with
both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol. That has not
happened thus far.
Chair Bass and I and the others on our side of the aisle have
remained open to a full and frank discussion with the minority about
their possible support of real and meaningful policing reform
legislation. That has not happened thus far.
But it is my hope that the Senate will take up meaningful
legislation--the legislation that Senator Scott has offered was hardly
meaningful--but I hope they will take up meaningful legislation and I
hope that we can work with them to pass meaningful legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Raskin).
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, the whole premise of civil government is
that we will be safer inside the social contract than outside of it,
the state of nature which Thomas Hobbes famously described as a state
of war, ``solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.''
So we give up the habits of violent self-help for trust in the rule
of law and the impartial administration of justice.
But where was the American social contract for George Floyd as
Officer Chauvin asphyxiated him with his knee as he begged for his
life; or Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old EMT who was shot eight times in
her own bed by officers carrying a no-knock warrant; or Tamir Rice, a
12-year-old boy who had a water fight in the park, and then was shot
dead by a police officer getting out of his car?
The American social contract has always been contaminated by racism.
In the words of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision, our
Constitution began as a ``White man's compact'' in which the African
American had ``no rights the White man was bound to respect.''
The Civil War gave us the chance for a new birth of freedom, but
after 12 years of reconstruction, it was washed away by the KKK and Jim
Crow.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, American apartheid lasted until the modern
civil rights movement, when the blood sacrifice of John Lewis and
Medgar Evers, Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman, and Dr. King gave us the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but we have
been brought back to the baseline of violent white supremacy by a
reactionary Supreme Court and a President who looks into the souls of
white supremacists and sees ``very fine people.''
This is the real deep state in America: violent white racism.
Black Lives Matter and America's young people have given us the
chance to launch a new birth of freedom, a third reconstruction in
America. Let's start today with the George Floyd Justice in Policing
Act.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my friend.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Arizona for
yielding.
There have been tragedies in this country, and yet it still hasn't
been

[[Page H2463]]

enough, apparently, to have the majority in the House, at least the
leadership, try to work together to come to a solution.
We have seen some of those solutions, and I have got the bill here,
H.R. 7120, but there is no better example than the legislation that
Congressman Bobby Rush has worked on for years and years trying to
pay an appropriate tribute to a 14-year-old Black young man who was
kidnapped, horribly tortured, and killed. And I can just read the last
phrase of this section 250:

The person may be in prison for not more than 10 years.

So I have an amendment that I thought should get some Democrat votes.
We are not going to pass any of ours unless we have Democrat votes. But
I believe the death penalty in lynching cases is totally appropriate,
certainly in some of them. That is why I felt it was totally
appropriate that the two people under Texas law that lynched, that
killed James Byrd got the death penalty. It has already been
implemented.
But I understood from hearing Chairman Nadler say three times, I
believe it was, the death penalty is barbarous. It is barbarous. It is
barbarous. Okay, he made clear to his members, do not support the
Gohmert amendment. And I would be happy calling it the Bobby Rush
amendment, because a life sentence was originally in his bill.
I offered--and it was spur of the moment, I didn't have it planned--
okay. Look, you are stopping the members--this is what I am thinking--
from voting for my amendment. All right. I need Democrat votes. Let's
take out the death penalty and just say ``any term of years, including
life,'' and stop there, not the ``or death.''
They wouldn't even agree to that. No. They are going to stop anything
that Republicans want to do.
We ought to be setting the example to those who are creating a
Marxist crime wave across our country trying to destroy what we have
instead of playing partisan games in here.
I am glad to hear in here how much the Democrats tried to reach out
and work with us, because I sure didn't get that message, because we
were ready, willing, and able.
And it is further demonstrated in the Senate, when Tim Scott was
doing everything he could to get a bill passed, and he couldn't get any
support.
Look, what do you see out in the streets? You see White spoiled
adults coming up to Black law enforcement officers, spitting, just
chiding them, giving them all kinds of crud. The message is clear: We
are White spoiled brats, and you came off the plantation. Get back.
That is what Clarence Thomas said he felt like because he was a
conservative that wanted to think for himself.
But those same law officers are the ones--I have seen the law
officers I know run to the sound of a gun to save lives even of people
that make fun of them.
How did we forget 9/11 so quickly, when we saw example after example
of their willingness to sacrifice?
Look, this is not going to do anything. This immunity removal is
going to help the law enforcement unions. They will make a fortune,
like teachers' unions do, selling the insurance, but it is going to
keep law officers tied up in civil court instead of criminal court, and
it is going to leave criminals on the street.

Madam Speaker, I say to my colleagues, vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, what do we hear from our Republican
friends? ``Marxism,'' ``antifa;'' anything but dealing with the
problem.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise for Charleena Lyles, Che Taylor,
Manuel Ellis, Tony McDade, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard
Brooks, Eric Garner, Atatiana Jefferson, Ezell Ford, Tanisha Anderson,
Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Philando Castile, Gabriella Nevarez, Botham
Jean.
I rise for Eric Reason, Stephon Clark, Dominique Clayton, Alton
Sterling, Michael Brown, Terence Crutcher, Janisha Fonville, Oscar
Grant, Freddie Gray, Laquan McDonald, Michelle Cusseaux, Akai Gurley,
Jamar Clark, Ariane McCree, Frank Smart, Natasha McKenna, Tony
Robinson, Anthony Hill.
I rise for Alexia Christian, Mya Hall, Calin Roquemore, Peter Gaines,
Sandra Bland, Demarcus Semer, Willie Tillman, Alteria Woods, Jordan
Edwards, Aaron Bailey, Antwon Rose II, Pamela Turner, Salvado Ellswood,
Darrius Stewart, Billy Ray Davis, Samuel DuBose.
I rise for Felix Kumi, Tyree Crawford, India Kager, Antronie Scott,
Troy Robinson, Anthony Ashford, Bettie Jones, Nathaniel Harris Pickett,
Aura Rosser, Dominique White, George Mann, William Chapman II, Brendon
Glenn.

{time} 1500

I rise for all of our Black brothers, sisters, and siblings who have
been killed by law enforcement in this country.
But, Madam Speaker, it is not enough just to say their names. It is
not enough just to say that Black lives matter. We must fight for Black
lives and for real transformative justice.
Let us pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act as a bold,
urgent, necessary first step. It bans chokeholds and defines them as
civil rights violations. It bans no-knock warrants for drug cases. It
establishes a public police misconduct registry. It reforms qualified
immunity and ends racial profiling by law enforcement.
It requires reporting of incidents of use of force, stops, and
searches, and the demographics of those involved, too.
It demilitarizes law enforcement by restricting the transfer of
military equipment to local police departments.
It finally classifies lynching as a Federal hate crime and gives the
Department of Justice the power to subpoena law enforcement departments
for pattern and practice investigations.
And so critically important, it invests money into Black and Brown
communities to reimagine what policing should look like, so everyone is
safe.
Madam Speaker, hundreds of thousands of people in communities across
America are standing up and speaking out for bold reform, organizing
day after day, night after night, in big cities and small towns. They
have not just forced a necessary conversation; they have prompted
necessary action.
So let us, today, heed these righteous voices of the powerful
movement on the ground so local communities, led by Black voices, can
move forward on transformational changes. That begins today by passing
the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, it is going to be hard to think of
something original to say, but I will give it a go.
First of all, I would like to point out that nobody I know defends
Derek Chauvin. And nobody I know doesn't have sympathy for George Floyd
and his family. That should go without saying.
The question is, what can we do to prevent this sort of thing in the
future?
I personally believe that part of the problem stems from the close
relationship that big city governments have with the local unions.
I had introduced a bill when I was in the State legislature about 13
years ago making it easier to get rid of an underperforming policeman.
That bill went nowhere, as most of these bills go nowhere because very
few people are willing to take on the unions.
That being said, when I introduced the bill, I did expect it would
save lives and would pass. I expected it to save Black lives, and I
expected it to save White lives.
Right now, you can Google Heather Mac Donald. She's pretty good on
this issue.
First of all, the number of lives lost in which an unarmed person was
shot by a police officer has fallen the last 4 years, from 70 lives to
28 lives, which is a good step in the right direction. It doesn't mean
we shouldn't do more. We should do more.
The second thing I will point out is, when adjusted for violent
crime, actually, a higher percentage of White people are killed by
police than Black people, and it offends me that we don't bring that
up. We try to racialize the issue.
The same day Breonna Taylor died, Duncan Lemp died in a situation,

[[Page H2464]]

killed by the police, the exact same situation. But you don't hear
about it talked about by anybody in this body or anybody on national
TV. You know why they don't talk about it? Because they want to tear
this country apart.
They don't want to talk about when White people are killed because
they want to enrage Black people, and they want to make White people
feel guilty and not like America. But if you look at the studies, that
is what it shows.
Now, hopefully, these local governments can do something to make it
easier to get rid of bad cops. But let's look at how this bill affects
the average person. The majority of cops, the vast majority of cops,
are great cops. What does it do to them? What it does is you take away
qualified immunity, which means if you are a police officer, you become
afraid to arrest somebody, you become afraid to resist somebody, you
become afraid to pursue somebody.
What is going to happen when we have a timid, neutered police force?
Right now, in Milwaukee--I don't represent Milwaukee, but my
districts goes right up to it--the number of murders this year has gone
up from 37 to 72 murders in the first 5-plus months, this year compared
to last year.
Does anybody care about all the people who are dying in the city of
Milwaukee who aren't killed by police? I don't hear a lot about it.
Already, they have cut the number of police this year, and they are
talking about cutting the number of police next year. What effect will
that have on people dying? Does anybody care? I don't hear anybody care
about that. All they want to do is tear down the police.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Grothman) an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, then, finally, you talk about Black
Lives Matter. I want to talk about Black Lives Matter a little bit.
You look on their website, and they want to disrupt the westernized,
prescribed nuclear family. I thought everybody was for the family.
Black Lives Matter, on their website, is against the strong family.
Cofounder Patrisse Cullors says government controls everything, and
she says, we are trained Marxists. That person is the cofounder of
Black Lives Matter. Do you want to follow them down the path of
complete government control over everything?
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished majority whip of the
House.
Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
The motto of my home State of South Carolina is ``Dum spiro spero.''
That is a Latin phrase for: ``While I breathe, I hope.''
Today, as the House prepares to vote on the historic George Floyd
Justice and Policing Act, those words take on a new meaning and a very
special meaning for me. In this moment, the haunting words of this
legislation's namesake, ``I can't breathe,'' echo in the streets daily.
In Mr. Floyd's case, his breath was literally being snuffed out as he
cried out for his dead mother. But for so many Blacks in our country
today, ``I can't breathe'' is just another way of saying, ``I have no
hope.''
Today, this august body is going to pass a piece of legislation that
will begin the process of restoring hope, hope to many whose ancestors
fought for centuries to be included in the Nation's vision of liberty
and justice for all.
This legislation gives us an opportunity to live up to what Alexis de
Tocqueville observed about America's greatness. He wrote:

America is not great because it is more enlightened than
any other nation, but rather because it has always been able
to repair its faults.

Today, we are seeking to repair some faults in our policing system, a
policing system whose foundation was built upon two pillars of
experiences, one by a group of Americans who came to America of their
own free will in search of freedom, the other by a group of Americans
who came to America against their will and were enslaved for 244 years.
Vestiges of that system are still evident in today's law enforcement
culture. Chokeholds on Black arrestees, no-knock entries into Black
residences, militarized police forces in Black communities, and
qualified immunity are all intended to preserve rather than serve,
intended to protect perpetrators of excessive use of force rather than
improve conditions and communities.
Today, House Democrats and, I hope, some of our Republican colleagues
will say by their votes that enough is enough, that it is time to apply
the greatness of America equitably and to all our citizens.
But we cannot stop here. Recent occurrences have exposed and shone a
spotlight on inequities in our healthcare system, inadequacies in our
educational system, and inappropriateness in our electoral system.
Liberty and justice for all remains a deferred dream for far too many.
Job losses, challenges in healthcare, eviction threats--people are
trying to catch their breath. If they can't breathe, they can't hope.
As a proud South Carolinian, I believe in and try to live by that
principle: ``While I breathe, I hope.'' With the passage of the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act, we will all breathe a little freer and
gain a little more hope.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, 13 years ago, I partnered with
California State Senate Democrats in advocating for an open records act
for complaints against police officers. Five years ago, I cosponsored
Hank Johnson's Stop Militarizing the Police Act. This year, I
cosponsored Justin Amash's legislation to end qualified immunity for
public officials.
So if the majority was seeking bipartisan support for police reform,
they would have had it. If they had sought consultation, compromise,
and cooperation, if they had reached across the aisle, they would have
found many sincere allies among Republicans.
My views on law enforcement were shaped years ago when I had the
honor to work for the former Los Angeles police chief, Ed Davis. His
approach to law enforcement proved highly effective.
While crime increased dramatically across the rest of the country
during these years, in Los Angeles, under Chief Davis, it came down. He
believed in the policing principles of Sir Robert Peel, that the police
are simply an extension of the community. Chief Davis believed that,
and he practiced it.
He introduced neighborhood watch, enlisting citizens to work in
partnership with the police. He introduced the Basic Car Plan that
matched patrol officers with individual neighborhoods so that they
would become a familiar, recognized, and trusted presence in those
neighborhoods.
I believe the closer we adhere to these principles, the more
effective law enforcement will become and the fewer abuses we will see.
Major parts of this bill move us closer to these principles,
including the need to open police records of misconduct, the
restriction of no-knock warrants, the restriction of transfers of
military hardware to local police departments, and the encouragement of
police cameras.
If these provisions were presented as standalone bills, I think many
would pass with significant bipartisan support. But by rolling them
into a bill that imposes an ideological laundry list of operational
restrictions and procedures upon every police department in the
country, it makes this bill unwise, unworkable, and unsupportable.
Worse, it ignores the most serious problem we face: the protection of
bad cops by collective bargaining agreements that makes it all but
impossible to fire them.
Policing is a uniquely community-based function. New York, New York,
and Auburn, California, are very different places with very different
needs, challenges, and standards. Running and micromanaging every local
police department is far beyond our competence or authority.
So, even though there are provisions in the bill I strongly support,
I cannot support the attempt to federalize local police departments,
which moves us further down a slippery slope I fear we are already on.
Looking at the wreckage on our streets, I feel the ultimate target of

[[Page H2465]]

the left is not isolated abuses by law enforcement officers but,
rather, law enforcement itself.
As we can now plainly see, without law enforcement, there is no law.
And without law, there is no civilization.
Finally, I strongly condemn the sentiments expressed in so many
forums that America is systemically racist. There are racists of every
color in every society. It is the baser side of human nature.
But no nation has struggled harder to transcend that nature and
isolate and ostracize its racists than have Americans. The American
Founders placed principles in the Declaration of Independence that they
believed would someday produce a nation of free men and women of all
races and religions, together enjoying the blessings of liberty under
the equal protection of our laws. Lincoln denounced any other claim as
``having an evil tendency, if not an evil design.''
An evil tendency and an evil design are exactly what the radical left
has introduced into our society, and it is tearing our country apart.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Demings).
Mrs. DEMINGS. Madam Speaker, I joined the police department in 1984.
Few words can describe the feeling that I had when I took my oath to
protect and serve. I took it to heart.
We all know the majority of police officers do the job well every
day. But today is about those who don't, those who should have never
been hired, or those who have forgotten their oaths of office.

{time} 1515

Police misconduct has resulted in the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna
Taylor, and Rayshard Brooks--people who should be alive today.
As Members of Congress, our primary responsibility is the health,
safety, and well-being of the American people. We have made progress.
We have come a long way, but we still have a ways to go. Good police
officers want us to get there. They need us to help them improve the
profession that they love.
As a former police officer and a police chief, I am supporting the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Passing this bill will change
much. I ask my colleagues to vote for it and pass this legislation.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Crenshaw).
Mr. CRENSHAW. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill,
which is unfortunate because it doesn't have to be this way. There is
actually a lot of agreement on much of this bill.
Honestly, I was pleasantly surprised when I read it, and if we voted
on this section by section, I believe there are some areas where there
would be an overwhelming bipartisan majority for some necessary and
crucial reforms. There are other parts where, if we just worked
together and made some changes, we would likely get to yes on a lot of
these. But as it stands now, it doesn't directly defund the police, but
it certainly will result in less policing.
Needless to say, that hurts the communities we are trying to help the
most. There isn't a community meeting out there that is asking for less
police. Minority neighborhoods or high crime neighborhoods want more
police. Now, they want better policing, but they want more of it.
In the Senate, Democrats wouldn't even debate Senator Scott's bill.
Here in the House, Democrats won't let Republicans offer a single
amendment.
What reason could the majority possibly have for refusing to work
with us?
When Americans are demanding that we work together toward common
goals, why won't Democrats do so?
This is sad, cynical politics. The Speaker of the House would rather
call Republicans murderers than work with us on solutions.
But it was never really about police reform. The majority's eyes and
actions are fixed on November, not police reform.
It is not too late. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and
work with us to send a bill that the President will sign.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).
Mr. CORREA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I join Congresswoman Bass in support of H.R. 7120, the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act.
The tragic death of George Floyd and countless others will not be in
vain. This bill is a comprehensive approach on policing that aims to
end decades of systemic racism, and I ask my colleagues to join us in
support of this measure.
I had hoped that arrest disparities, especially cannabis-related
arrests, would have been part of this measure. According to the ACLU,
Black people are more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession,
and in some States they are up to 10 times more likely to be arrested
for cannabis possession. We can't ask our police officers to enforce
flawed cannabis policy. Cannabis use is a social and medical issue and
not a criminal matter.
Let's not ask our police officers to do the impossible. I ask for
reform in cannabis policy immediately.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong
support for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
It is past time for Congress to make systemic changes on issues of
racism, police brutality, and racial profiling. We must put an end to
unjustified use of force by the police that has resulted in the death
of one too many Black and Brown Americans.
As a person of faith, I believe the responsibility falls on each and
every one of us to ensure that everyone is treated as a child of God.
However, the reality is George Floyd was not treated as the child of
God that he is. He wasn't treated that way when he said his last words,
``I can't breathe.''
Justice demands that we must put an end to police brutality, racial
profiling, white supremacy, and the vicious racism in America.
Justice demands that long-suffering Americans be made whole for being
denied their rights as Americans.
If there is anything that history has taught us, it is that our laws
must be equal to all, and we must boldly affirm that Black lives
matter.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hurd).
Mr. HURD of Texas. Madam Speaker, today we are missing an opportunity
to pass an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill. We are missing an
opportunity for a police reform bill to actually become law. We are
missing an opportunity to do our part to prevent another Black person
from dying in police custody.
Everyone here believes, as I do, that whether your skin is black or
your uniform is blue, you should not feel targeted in this country.
We have failed to do one simple thing: empower police chiefs to
permanently fire bad cops.
This is one of the most important things Congress could have
addressed. Keeping bad cops off the force could prevent another killing
like George Floyd. It would protect good police officers by ensuring
bad officers, like George Floyd's murderer, don't soil the reputations
of good officers.
Just a few months ago when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, we
worked together as one Congress--not two parties--to pass needed relief
to our fellow citizens. That is the spirit that I wish was in this
Chamber today.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I want to extend my condolences to my good
friend and to the Speaker for her recent loss.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act, a powerful and transformative bill that will ultimately
help save lives.
In the wake of the tragic deaths of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd,
Elijah McClain, Michael Marshall, and so many others, it is critical
and it is our duty to act. As a multicultural and multiracial movement
sweeps our Nation and as communities across the country plead for
change, it lands on each of us to act.
This bill will ban chokeholds. It will bring transparency by standing
up the

[[Page H2466]]

first ever national database of civilian police encounters, and it will
provide additional tools to the Department of Justice and State
attorneys general for pattern or practice investigations.
We must enact these reforms. We must stand up on the side of justice
and equality. We must act.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Mrs. McBath).
Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I do offer you my deepest condolences.
We stand here today keenly aware that we are living through history.
Yet again, racism and injustice have opened painful wounds 400 years in
the making.
I lost my son, Jordan, to those wounds. And, yes, my Black son's life
did matter. With each gut-wrenching video, I am reminded of the hole
left in my heart by the murder of my own son. That is my history. It is
the history of far too many Black Americans, and it is a history that
can never, ever be erased.
But America has always been able to rise to the tests of our time.
Our future is etched in the courage of our convictions, and today we
must respond with bold action.
Madam Speaker, to save American lives, to create a better future for
our children, and to help mend the wounds of hate and violence, our
response is clear. I urge my colleagues to support the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act.
Our time is now.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).
Mr. STANTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
I want to thank Chairman Nadler and Congresswoman Bass for their
unwavering leadership on this historic legislation.
Black lives matter. George Floyd was murdered 1 month ago today. This
month has been a painful and reflective period for our Nation, and the
House has taken an essential step to heal that pain with this bill.
Today, we vote on long overdue legislation to bring greater
accountability and transparency into policing and to help make everyone
more safe. The specific measures included in this bill, from banning
chokeholds and no-knock warrants to eliminating qualified immunity, are
critical steps to improve policing practices. It includes reforms to
combat racial profiling and right injustices that exist in America
today.
The ability to end racism in our country is beyond the reach of
Congress. We don't have the power to change every heart and mind, but
we do have the power to change the law, to make it more just, and to
combat structural racism through measurable, meaningful reforms.
Change starts here today.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
Ms. DEAN. Madam Speaker, I, too, offer you my and my family's
sympathies on the loss of your father.
Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in support of this historic
bill, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. Enough is enough.
Racial injustice has been right before our eyes for far too long--
Amadou Diallo, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard
Brooks, and George Floyd. We can no longer turn a blind eye. We need to
meet this civil rights moment of national anguish. We must insist on
bold change, not surrender to a bare minimum.
Unarmed Black Americans are being murdered in the street by those who
have sworn to protect and serve. This is not a Black problem. It is my
problem. It is your problem. It is our American problem.
We must ban chokeholds, no-knock warrants, and finally hold officers
accountable.
George Floyd's daughter said, ``My daddy changed the world.'' Let's
come together and honor her words. Let's change the world with this
transformative bill.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Mucarsel-Powell).
Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL. Madam Speaker, my condolences. I just heard
about your father.
Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act. Today marks 1 month since George Floyd called
out, ``I can't breathe,'' as an officer suffocated him to death and two
complicitly watched. The world has joined Mr. Floyd's family in
demanding that we take action. South Florida and my constituents are
demanding action.
We can't bring him back, but we can bring justice to him; to his 6-
year-old daughter, Gianna; his family; and his brother, Philonise.
We can put an end to chokeholds and hold every police officer
accountable for their actions. We can honor the life and legacy of
Breonna Taylor, whose murderers still walk free, and we can and must
serve the memory of the countless other lives that have been taken and
brutalized by bringing law enforcement back to their roots of
protecting and serving.
The time for bold and profound action is now.

{time} 1530

Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to control the balance of our time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio
controls the balance of the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from the State of Arizona (Mr. Biggs), chairman of the
Freedom Caucus, and my good friend and great Member.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding some
time to me.
Madam Speaker, we consider something very serious today, and that is
reformation of policing. And we are, as Federal elected officials,
reaching into State and local police agencies. And if this bill were to
become law, we are imposing the values of us collectively--because that
is the way this works--on those State and local agencies.
Madam Speaker, when we had this debate in the Committee on the
Judiciary, it was often pointed out by some on my side of the aisle
that there was movement afoot to defund, and in some cases, even
eliminate police agencies at the local and State level. And that was
viewed as a ruse, as a deflection from the issue. But in reality,
indeed, this bill itself will have that effect.
Madam Speaker, see, on the front side of it, you have a radical group
of folks, people who are agitating to actually defund or eliminate
police agencies--whether they are affiliated with any of my colleagues,
I don't know. We have had some Members of this body suggest that their
own police departments are cancerous and should be amputated. We have
seen that.
And then on the other hand, though, this bill actually is a rear-
guard action.
So you have a frontal attack on State and local police--eliminate
them. Then you have a rear-guard action. That is what this does. It
brings power to control local and State police to this body.
Madam Speaker, as my friend from California said earlier, one of the
most unique things about policing is it is tied to community. So we
need to consider that. We need to consider that this bill will actually
have the impact that so many seem to want, and that is to attenuate
State and local policing. So when we start talking about qualified
limited immunity and the proposed elimination of that in this bill, I
recall that there were several Members from my side of the aisle that
wish to see that. I mean, Mr. McClintock said he would like to see it
done away with. Others said the same thing. But there were also efforts
and attempts to modify the qualified limited immunity rules.
Madam Speaker, now why is this important? Because you need to
understand that QLI does not protect a police officer from charges for
illegal or unconstitutional conduct. It just doesn't. But when you
totally eliminate it, the same protections that are there for, whether
it is a schoolteacher

[[Page H2467]]

or social worker or some other government worker, police officers will
now be left without protection whatsoever. And the result will be, it
will be harder to recruit, train, and retain police officers. We are
not going to have the best police officers we can get anymore.
Madam Speaker, so what is going to happen, then, is you are going to
see fewer police officers. So you are going to see, for instance, in
one of the big cities in my State, hundreds of vacancies already there.
You will see that move to thousands of vacancies. You will see fewer
police on the street. Those police who are there will have to make a
calculated cost-risk-ratio assessment.
And that assessment will be this: If I get involved in this
particular situation, what will be the risk to my family going forward?
If you want police officers to make that calculation, I can guarantee
you they will say it is better if I sit in my car. I will wait till
this situation has been ameliorated and then I will step forward. So
you will have less policing, fewer officers, and that will mean higher
crime. More crime.
Madam Speaker, I can't help but comment on something that was said by
the chairman earlier today, something that was iterated the other day
in our Committee on the Judiciary hearing on this, where a gentleman
said at that time the same thing that the chairman said today, that
effectively antifa was a fiction. It was imaginary. It was like a
unicorn, for Pete's sake.
I refer them to a CNN article from, I believe, it is 2018, where a
couple of CNN reporters interviewed leaders of the antifa movement and
iterated that some members don't want to advocate for violence but
others do because they have an objective and they believe that violence
will help them get their objective. I don't think CNN thinks antifa is
a fiction. Apparently, here, we do, though.
Madam Speaker, but I have to say that as we are talking about taking
away--back to the QLI--qualified immunity, one of the members of the
Committee on the Judiciary said, Well, look, here is what will happen:
We just tell the police officers to go get an E&O policy, get an errors
and omissions policy, like I have to do as an attorney or like doctors
have to do.
Well, I viewed that statement at the time as an accidental omission
that elimination of qualified limited immunity will actually leave
police officers unprotected and subject to the avaricious litigation of
trial attorneys. And I say that as a guy who was a trial attorney. I am
really familiar with how that works.
So this bill will nationalize policing while at the same time result
in higher crime, less policing, less safety. That always means there
will be less respect for rights for individuals in this country.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Escobar).
Ms. ESCOBAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act.
Mr. Speaker, the day our country witnessed the brutal murder of
George Floyd was a critical tipping point for America. His murder has
sparked a movement--one of renewed calls for civil rights and justice
for all.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have been marching in the streets.
They are not asking for incentives for studies or for task forces. No,
they are asking and marching for and demanding meaningful change and
meaningful reform. And it is up to us to rise up and deliver on change
that will meet this moment.
Mr. Speaker, I pray that our Republican colleagues have a change of
heart and decide to join us on our journey toward true reform. This
bill is only the beginning and we need to push for a whole-of-
government response--from Congress, to the statehouse, to the city
halls all over America.
Mr. Speaker, our country deserves no less. This moment deserves no
less. George Floyd deserves no less.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the
balance of the time of the minority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Castro of Texas). Without objection, the
gentleman from North Dakota controls the balance of the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I come here for two purposes: One is to express my
opposition to this bill.
My second purpose is to express my hope, my hope that we can come
together and that we can negotiate a long-lasting and a significant
compromise, an American compromise to an American problem.
Just yesterday, the Democrats in the Senate blocked Senator Tim
Scott's bill, the JUSTICE Act. They blocked it from moving forward with
debate. They blocked it from moving forward for compromise and for
negotiation. That is not an American solution.
We all agree this is an American problem. We all agree we need an
American solution, and we all agree that that means we have to have
negotiation. That means we have to have compromise.
Mr. Speaker, the minority leader in the Senate wouldn't even allow
our counterparts in the Senate to discuss solutions and allow them to
decide if it is the right path forward. Now, here we find ourselves in
the House facing a situation where we have a partisan bill, drafted
without Republican involvement, that is being brought to the House
floor to be voted on in a rush process. That is not an American
solution to an American problem.
We have seen calls to defund the police and dismantle police
departments across the United States. We all know that can only lead to
bad outcomes. We all know that the police are there to protect and to
serve.
Yes, we all know that there are bad policemen out there. We all know
there are bad actors in every profession, and we know that they need to
be weeded out. We need to do that. And we also know that those bad
policemen are as offensive to the good policemen as they are to anyone.
No one wants to see them weeded out more than the good policemen want
to see them weeded out. This bill does nothing to address those calls
and reassure Americans that things will happen.
No, this is a partisan bill with no Republican involvement
whatsoever. This bill also doesn't take appropriate steps to ensure
that law enforcement officers are working to improve their relations
with the community--the community that they serve and protect. We have
all said we need community policing. You ask any policeman, any good
policeman out there, ``What is the best police practice?'' And they
will tell you ``Community policing.'' That is what we need.
Mr. Speaker, instead, this bill limits their ability to do their
jobs, and it keeps them in their cars rather than interacting with the
people in their communities. That is what they want to do. They are not
there for the money. We know that. There is not a single police person
out there that is there for the money. They are there to protect and to
serve. And they want community policing. That is what they want.
Mr. Speaker, in my district, we had a tragic death of a young man
whose life ended way too early--Ahmaud Arbery. This was something that
none of us should accept in our society, and none of us will accept in
our society. It should have never happened.
We have had protests. We should have protests. I am very proud of the
First Congressional District because our protests have been productive.
Yes, we should protest and, yes, we are protesting. And we are getting
results because we are protesting in the right way. We are protesting
to change the system. That is what we want to do. We are protesting to
have an American solution to an American problem.
Mr. Speaker, the right path forward is discussion and negotiation
with our eyes, with our goal, with our mission set on real reforms.
This bill doesn't have that. This bill doesn't represent that. This
bill is not an American solution to an American problem. That is why I
am urging my colleagues to oppose this bill. That is why I am urging my
colleagues to negotiate, to compromise. That is why I am encouraging my
colleagues to come up with an American solution to an American problem.

[[Page H2468]]

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).
Ms. OMAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of my city of
Minneapolis, who are angry, who are sick, who are tired of being
murdered at the hands of police.
I rise on behalf of Jamar Clark, who was shot in the back and killed
by Minneapolis police in 2015.
I rise on behalf of Philando Castile, who was brutally murdered by
police.
I rise on behalf of Black mothers, like myself, who stay up worried
every single night so that their sons can come home safe.
I rise on behalf of Eric Garner, Sandra Bland, Frederick Gray.
I rise on behalf of George Floyd, who was brutally murdered, and his
brutal murder touched our Nation.
I rise because so many can no longer rise. When we build a system
that provides equal justice for everyone here in America, we might
finally all rise.

{time} 1545

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has reached an inflection point in
our history. Our country is demanding change after four centuries of
systemic racism toward African Americans.
The Members of this body must listen and respond to the millions of
Americans who want this country to correct course and move toward the
Constitution's promise of equal justice under the law.
Your neighbors, friends, children, and grandchildren are demanding
that we pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act and subsequently
move forward in a comprehensive way to erase the stain of racism on
this Nation existing since Africans first were brought ashore.
This is the moment. History will judge us by our actions today, at
this pivotal moment. Future generations will look at this moment and
wonder, when you had the opportunity to stand and guide our country in
its ongoing quest to be a more perfect union, the question will be
asked: What did you do? You can, today, begin to make right the many
wrongs perpetrated upon people of color and ensure our country lives up
to its great promise.
So we must get to yes. Vote ``yes'' on this legislation to improve
the quality of life for people that are as American as any one of you.
As video evidence has clearly shown, African Americans are still due
all the rights and privileges granted by the 14th Amendment.
In the words of the Missouri poet Langston Hughes:

I swear to the Lord
I still can't see
Why democracy means
Everybody but me.
I, too, am America.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act because it is an abomination that the people
who keep me safe cause others to live in fear.
I rise because I was Breonna Taylor's Congressman, and I will
continue to represent her until she gets justice because Breonna
Taylor, when her door was broken down after midnight, wasn't just
killed by one cop, a bad apple, or even three.
I rise because Breonna Taylor was killed by a system, a system that
allowed police to blindly fire 22 shots, killing an unarmed woman in
her home, and says that is not a crime.
I rise because Breonna Taylor's story, though tragic, is not unique.
Because far too often, that system is more interested in shielding
those who perpetrate these atrocities than seeking justice for those it
is meant to serve. And because, while tragedies like Breonna's are not
uncommon, and millions must live in fear for their lives every single
day--I am not one of them. People who look like me are not among them.
I rise because this system is far too badly broken for Band-Aid
solutions. And this bill, the most dramatic rethinking of policing ever
to come before the United States Congress, is a much-needed and long-
overdue step. And every day we delay will cost more lives.
I rise because hundreds of thousands have risen up and made their
voices heard and shown me the way.
And most importantly, I rise because Black lives matter.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just today, we heard the following: ``We are just going to go out and
start slaughtering them.'' North Carolina cops fired after racist talk
of killing Black residents. ``Wipe them off the F'ing map. That will
put them back about four or five generations.''
That is why we say it is systemic racism.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support
of this legislation that is long overdue. As a matter of fact, people
like me have been fighting these issues for years and years. Now, we
get an opportunity to actually vote.
I want to thank Chairman Nadler and Chairman Bass for giving us the
opportunity to vote on what might become and should be the most
important legislation we will pass this year, because it does say that
Black lives, and all lives, matter.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act. I am an original co-sponsor of The Justice in Policing
Act which will for the first time ever under federal law:
1. establish national standard for the operation of police
departments;
2. mandate data collection on police encounters;
3. reprogram existing funds to invest in transformative community-
based policing programs;
4. streamline federal law to prosecute excessive force and establish
independent prosecutors for police investigations;
5. make Lynching a federal crime to conspire to violate existing
federal hate crime laws.
Among other specifics it will: make it easier for the federal
government to successfully prosecute police misconduct cases, end
racial and religious profiling, and eliminate qualified immunity for
law enforcement.
The bill incentivizes the use of independent prosecutors for police
misconduct investigations, helps take equipment made for war off of our
streets, and requires the use of body and dashboard cameras. The
legislation bans the use of choke holds and no-knock warrants the
federal level and encourages states to do the same.
This bill contains no new federal funds for policing except where
constitutionally-mandated for data collection and conditions access to
federal grants based on a state's willingness to adopt the
transformative provisions in the bill. Instead it reprograms existing
grants to law enforcement and reinvests in our communities by
supporting critical community-based programs to change the culture of
law enforcement and empower our communities to reimagine public safety
in an equitable and just manner.
The ``Executive Order'' signed by President Trump recently was too
little, too late. Surrounded by bellicose declarations of ``law and
order'' in the face of persistent and on-going murder of Black men and
women, especially our youth, it was nothing less than an insult and an
attempt to deny the demands put forward by more than three weeks of
protest and calls for real change by hundreds of thousands in more than
100 cities, towns and villages in every state of the union.
I view the Justice in Policing Act as a long overdue minimum federal
action to address 400 years of terrorism against the African American
community and other oppressed communities and our responsibility as
Members of Congress to utilize the power of the voice of the people in
streets in every corner of our nation to take decisive and meaningful
steps to redress the centuries of brutalization of our people.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), chair of the Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security Subcommittee and sponsor of this important
legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that she may control the time
on the majority side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?

[[Page H2469]]

There was no objection.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, today, we take a crucial step
toward racial justice. We do it in the name of George Floyd, Breonna
Taylor, Tony McDade, Corey Jones, and all of those lives unjustly taken
by law enforcement.
We mourn and say their names on the House floor because their lives
and all Black lives matter.
So let's move to end the policing culture that lacks real
transparency and accountability. Let us unite to ban barbaric
chokeholds and build the national misconduct registry so problematic
police don't just move to another town to keep a badge.
Let's outlaw racial profiling, qualified immunity for rights-
violating police, and dangerous no-knock warrants.
This bill targets bad actors and practices and affirms the standards
professional law enforcement set for themselves, including a duty to
serve and protect.
Half-measures are not acceptable, not when men and women are killed
because of their skin color.
Let's seize this moment to dismantle the centuries of institutional
racism embedded in our justice system.
By the way, in response to what the gentleman on the other side of
the aisle said about an American solution for an American problem, it
doesn't get more American than making sure that justice is meted out
fairly and without regard to one's skin color.
Let us all bend the arc toward justice by voting for the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, ``The arc of the moral universe is long,
but it bends toward justice,'' Martin Luther King said.
I want to thank Chairwoman Bass, Chairman Nadler, and Senator Booker
for their leadership on this landmark piece of legislation.
We stand here today at a great moral reckoning. For millions of Black
and Brown Americans, our country is unequal. The traumatic murders of
Black and Brown Americans by the very people and institutions meant to
protect them make clear something needs to change.
I watched the protests. I have heard the courage and cries for
justice. I have marched.
And today, we show that this House is listening.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is the largest reform
Congress has undertaken in generations. It is no half measure but a
full measure.
The growing divide between our men and women in blue and the public
they are sworn to protect is unhealthy for democracy. It is unhealthy
for public safety. It is unhealthy for the brothers in blue, and I
stand here as the co-chair of First Responders and Public Safety in
Congress. It is time we make clear that Black lives matter and never
forget it.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of every Black
family that has been robbed of a child, on behalf of every family
member that has been forced to see their loved one lynched on national
television.
Driving while Black, jogging while Black, sleeping while Black, we
have been criminalized for the very way we show up in the world.
Under the harsh gaze of far too many, my black body is seen as a
threat, always considered armed. Centuries of institutionalized
oppression will not be undone overnight, for racism in America is as
structural as the marble pillars of this very institution.
With the power of the pen, we must legislate accountability,
dismantle these systems, and move in the direction of justice and
healing.
The Justice in Policing Act is a critical step forward, and I applaud
the leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus.
But our work is unfinished. There is a rallying cry in communities
across the Nation. Black Lives Matter is a mandate from the people. It
is time. Pay us what you owe us. Our black skin is not a crime. It is
the beautiful robe of nation builders.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez).
Mr. GONZALEZ of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, while I will not be supporting
this bill today, I do want to commend my colleagues for bringing this
debate to floor.
Mr. Jeffries, Mr. Richmond, and many others who I have watched on
television back in my office have spoken with a conviction and a truth
that cannot be denied.
As a former professional and college football player, I have been
hearing these painful stories for my entire adult life from my own
teammates. I have seen it myself when I went out in the community with
some of my African-American friends.
While I can never fully understand its effects or its impact, I know
it is real. We have to address it around our dinner tables, in our
communities, and here on the House floor. Black lives have always
mattered.
I also know a few other important things.
Number one, the American people are starving for us to work together
in a bipartisan way to get a passable bill on the President's desk and
signed into law.
This has been one of the most brutal times in our life. First the
coronavirus, then the economy, so much uncertainty, and finally the
brutality enacted on George Floyd as he was murdered on the streets of
Minneapolis. The legitimate protest movements getting overshadowed and
overrun by anarchists who simply wish to destroy America and burn it
all down. This has been a brutal summer, and it is only June.

Number two, with very few exceptions, this House is united in wanting
to deliver for the country. I have spoken to dozens of Members on both
sides of the aisle, and this body wants to act. Every call that I have
been on since the murder of George Floyd has been a near-universal
desire for action and meaningful reform. We believe our bill does that.
I know there is disagreement there, though. But I also know we are not
that far apart.
Finally, we all know that today's bill will not become law. I know my
colleagues are sincere in their desire to enact this law, but we know
that this will never see the light of day in the Senate, and there is
no chance that it will be signed into law.
Yesterday, on the Senate floor, we saw Senator Scott deliver a
powerful, impassioned plea for compromise and debate, true negotiation.
We all know that that is the only way that we can live up to our duties
as Members of Congress and deliver for the people of this country who
so desperately need a win right now.
We live in divided government, whether we like it or not. To the
majority, I would say: You are the majority. This choice is yours.
Please do not let it slip away.

{time} 1600

Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman in
California (Mr. Takano).
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act. This is necessary and bold legislation that
includes critical provisions to hold police accountable and to save
lives. It includes a ban on no-knock warrants that would have saved
Breonna Taylor's life, a ban on chokeholds that would have saved George
Floyd's life, and the prohibition on racial profiling that would have
saved Rayshard Brooks' life.
Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, and so many other
innocent Black lives were ended by law enforcement officers, who often
faced little to no consequences for their actions.
This bill also reforms qualified immunity for law enforcement, which
is a barrier to achieving justice for victims of police brutality. The
Senate majority's idea of compromise is to strip this section out of
the bill. I say no.
A police officer has held his knee to George Floyd's neck for 8
minutes and 46 seconds, leading to his death. This atrocious act has
finally forced us to confront the racism deeply rooted in our
institutions.

[[Page H2470]]

Congress must act. Vote ``yes'' on the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McNerney).
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, racism persists in America today, and its
poison pervades our institutions, creating barriers that magnify
inequality and injustice.
To Black Americans and communities of color, this comes as no
surprise. But, unfortunately, it has taken many Americans too long to
acknowledge this truth. We cannot ignore how the remnants of slavery
and the Jim Crow era have maintained a stronghold on our institutions.
Our criminal justice system disproportionally penalizes Black
Americans and people of color with almost blanket immunity for those
who disregard human life and dignity. But, today, we have an
opportunity to right these wrongs and to tell the world that the U.S.
House of Representatives believes that Black lives matter.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act would make much-needed
reforms, from holding police accountable to combating racial profiling.
When this law passes, this will make a real difference in American
life. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this essential
legislation.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from California for
her brilliant leadership on this very important matter.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, the George Floyd Justice
in Policing Act of 2020. I am proud to cosponsor this long-overdue
proposal to end brutality in law enforcement and to address the
systemic racism that has marred American law enforcement for too long.
With this legislation, we finally say enough is enough. We have had
enough of racial and religious profiling. We have had enough of no-
knock warrants and chokeholds. We have had enough of qualified immunity
and enough of police using military-grade equipment on our streets.
This bill will help us move from, frankly, a culture of impunity all
too often in our law enforcement entities to a culture of
accountability.
We serve the public, whether we are in law enforcement or whether in
the Halls of Congress. This bill reaffirms that principle in a
democracy. I am proud to support it in the memory of the murdered
George Floyd.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Horsford).
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of the
Justice in Policing Act. I want to commend our chairwoman of the
Congressional Black Caucus for her tremendous leadership.
George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Rayshard Brooks, Elijah
McClain, for them, and for all of the other Black lives that matter, we
need, and this bill provides, concrete Federal reforms to address the
root causes of these injustices.
George Floyd and so many others like him should be alive today. With
the Justice in Policing Act, we can, like the Reverend Dr. Martin
Luther King said, bend the arc of justice, when all Americans will be
treated with humanity and dignity by law enforcement.
During this moment of national anguish, we must insist on bold
change. This legislation is necessary to save lives and to seek
justice, and I am proud to cast my vote in favor of this legislation
today.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
Mexico (Ms. Haaland).
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Speaker, our justice system has been biased:
slavery; the Trail of Tears; blankets laced with smallpox; Jim Crow
laws; and, recently, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd. Justice has never
been just for everyone, but only for some people.
The barriers that have long blocked many people from achieving the
American Dream have been revealed most recently under the knees of
police. The racism in our system is long-lasting, and change is long
overdue. That is why I support the Justice in Policing Act.
This bill is a beacon of hope to victims of the systemic racism that
plagues our criminal justice system. This bill envisions a new model of
public safety that works to end racial bias; promotes de-escalation
training instead of militarization; and is built on community trust,
transparency, and accountability.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this historic bill.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, the tragic killing of George Floyd, Breonna
Taylor, and so many others has led to a nationwide cry for action to
address racism and target police violence in America.
Across the country, millions of Americans have peacefully rallied,
protested, marched, and prayed for a changing of hearts and a changing
of laws to pursue additional accountability and transparency in police
departments.
In my own district in Virginia, I was proud to join those who stood
up against racism and declare that Black lives matter. A few weeks ago,
I was optimistic that we could collaborate on legislation and rise to
the occasion in the wake of the many injustices that have come to light
across our Nation. But, today, I am saddened, saddened that the
majority has slammed the door shut on Republicans, slammed the door
shut on real reform, slammed the door shut on bipartisanship, and
slammed the door shut on Senator Tim Scott's proposals as we sought to
work together to find a bipartisan solution.
Instead of working across the aisle on this important matter, and
instead of taking Senator Scott up on his offer to work together on a
bill that could be signed into law, the majority is pushing a bill
through the House that cannot be signed into law and that will, in
fact, impede the ability of good police officers to do their jobs
effectively and, further, allow bad cops to hide behind police union
collective bargaining agreements.
During the markup of this legislation, my colleagues and I offered a
dozen reasonable amendments in an effort to improve this bill. My
amendment to ensure collective bargaining agreements do not protect
racist and violent officers was rejected by Democrats at the markup and
under the closed rule today, unfortunately, was not made in order.
While I do thank the gentlewoman, the chair of the subcommittee, in
ensuring that portions of my amendment were included and that the
Department of Justice now would have the ability to pursue bad cops
through consent decrees regardless of collective bargaining barriers,
it fails to directly address the many troublesome provisions found in
collective bargaining agreements that my amendment would have
prevented, provisions like ensuring access to evidence for officers
before interviews or interrogations about alleged wrongdoing occurred;
provisions delaying officer interviews after alleged misconduct;
mandating the destruction of disciplinary records--nobody wants that to
be a policy of a local police department; prohibiting the
investigations of misconduct after a set length of time; prohibiting
the investigation of anonymous complaints; requiring arbitration after
being disciplined or terminated. These are provisions that do not
belong in collective bargaining agreements for our local police
departments.
Between 2006 and 2017, according to The Washington Post, the Nation's
largest police departments fired nearly 1,900 police officers for
misconduct, but those departments were forced to reinstate more than
450 officers after appeals required by union collective bargaining
agreements.
Further, collective bargaining agreements have been linked to an
increase in violent incidents involving law enforcement officers. One
study found a 40 percent increase of violent incidents in Florida after
a change in collective bargaining laws there. In 2006, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics issued a report and found that law enforcement

[[Page H2471]]

agencies operating under a collective bargaining agreement garnered 9.9
use of force complaints for every 100 officers, compared to 7.3 use of
force for nonunionized agencies. During the disciplinary process, only
7 percent of the complaints were sustained or found to have merit in
departments with collective bargaining agreements. In agencies without
unions, the sustain rate was more than double at 15 percent.
This was just another example, by not including my amendment, of how
the majority refused to work with us on this legislation, rather than
accept good amendments on our side where we could find common ground,
but we were cut out of the process. There is nothing in the legislation
to address the dangerous and reckless efforts by some officials further
to defund, dismantle, or disband police departments.
Our dedicated police officers who serve our communities work to
ensure that lawlessness does not prevail in our streets and
neighborhoods. The anarchy and death that unfolded within Seattle's
autonomous zone, or CHAZ, is a perfect example of what defund the
police would look like across America.
Frankly, it is no surprise that the American people are fed up with
Washington. As Mr. Hudson referred to earlier, this was a moment in our
history that calls for unity and healing. But, unfortunately, with eyes
on November elections, the majority has decided to let politics drive
debate rather than sound public policy.

We are all outraged by the horrific tragedies that have occurred
across our Nation, and it is utterly unacceptable that the legislation
before us reached the House floor in such a partisan manner.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill in its current form, and I
urge them to reconsider because to get legislation across the finish
line, we need to put politics aside to eradicate racism in America, to
uphold the foundational principles of our Republic and live out the
motto inscribed on the Supreme Court building across the street: Equal
Justice Under Law.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank my colleague on the other side of the aisle for the
ideas that you were concerned about, and the fact that you recognized
that part of your ideas we did incorporate in the manager's amendment.
And so I do look forward to working with you in the future.
I want to say to several of my other colleagues on the other side of
the aisle: This is a process. We have had many conversations, many
conversations leading up to this, and I am sure those conversations
will continue. But I am really encouraged to hear my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, number one, agree that what happened in
Minneapolis was a horrific act of violence, and that the issue of
police abuse is a real issue and that the issue of systemic racism is a
real issue.
I think it is important to note that because as these situations have
happened before when people have been killed, even when they have been
killed on video, they always seem to be up for debate. ``Well, maybe we
don't really know what happened before the camera went on,'' or,
``Maybe somebody was a criminal.''
We are united on both sides of the aisle in recognizing that there is
a problem in this country. There is a historic problem in this country.
And I believe that we will eventually get there and move forward and
have a bill. I am happy that we will be passing this bill today, but I
don't see this as the end.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Bonamici).

{time} 1615

Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, Black lives matter. I rise in strong
support of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Black people in this country have been fighting for centuries for
freedom, equality, and justice under the law. The senseless death of
George Floyd is the latest tragic example of how, too often, the Black
community is targeted rather than supported by law enforcement.
In Oregon and around the country, people from all backgrounds are
demanding change, and the bill before us today answers their call. It
bans chokeholds and no-knock warrants, overturns the existing qualified
immunity doctrine, creates a public national police misconduct
registry, and increases accountability and oversight of Federal, State,
and local law enforcement.
The bill cannot bring back George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, or the
countless others who have been killed or mistreated by the very
individuals who swore an oath to protect them, but we can honor their
memory today by passing this legislation to prevent these abuses going
forward.
I thank Chairwoman Bass for her leadership.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Bass for
yielding and for her visionary and tremendous leadership.
Let me say a couple of things about this bill.
First of all, finally, this bill, after generations, will begin to
end systemic racism in policing. Young people from all backgrounds are
demanding action and have said to the world that enough is enough.
As the mother and grandmother of Black men and boys, I had too many
painful conversations, as do all Black families, about what to do to
make sure their encounters with the police are not deadly.
The trauma around these fears are lifelong. This is not normal, but
for African American parents, sadly, it is.
The tragic murder of George Floyd and so many African Americans
around the country, including in my own district with Oscar Grant,
demand action. These tragic murders demand justice that this bill
provides, for example, by ending qualified immunity. No one is above
the law.
The world is watching today, Mr. Speaker. The United Nations passed a
resolution condemning the violent practices perpetrated by law
enforcement against people of African descent in the United States of
America. Let us show the rest of the world that we truly intend to live
up to our creed of liberty and justice for all and, yes, that means
also Black lives do matter.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each
side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 56
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 50 minutes remaining.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Justice. Justice. I have heard my Tampa
neighbors and their calls for justice. Black lives matter, and I
dedicate my vote on the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act today to
the generations of Tampa neighbors who have suffered the unfair burdens
of discrimination, disrespect, and violence due to the color of their
skin.
Too many lives over too many years in America cut short at the hands
of officers who were supposed to protect them, so House Democrats will
act decisively today to ensure that police officers are held
accountable for misconduct and that lives are saved. We will end
harmful policing practices, including racial profiling, no-knock
warrants, and chokeholds.
The time for change is now. In fact, a new paradigm for policing in
America is overdue.
I thank my good friend, Congresswoman Karen Bass of California, for
bringing us closer to justice today.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, coronavirus has
infected our great Nation for months, but racism has infected our
society for centuries. Racism has helped cause disparities in
education, health, housing, and, of course, criminal justice.
Well, today we take a historic step to finally do something about it.
I am proud to support and cosponsor the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act. It is time. It is long past time that we breathe new life
again into our motto, ``Equal Justice for All.''

[[Page H2472]]

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding and her leadership, along with the
Congressional Black Caucus, in moving this important bill to the floor.
I rise today with Americans across the country who are demanding
change. I rise in strong support of the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act.
This vital reform package addresses police brutality, law enforcement
accountability, and racial injustice. It creates data collection
standards, bans racial and religious profiling, ends the use of
chokeholds that killed Eric Garner and George Floyd, and bans no-knock
warrants like the one that took the life of Breonna Taylor. It ends
qualified immunity to allow full accountability.
This bill is a critical first step toward a more just nation. We
cannot be a country that declares Black lives matter if we fail to make
lasting change to protect the lives of Black people.
We are facing a historic moment, and we must deliver historic change.
Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 7120.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Bass for yielding, and
I thank the Congressional Black Caucus for their extraordinary
leadership.
The death of George Floyd has shaken the conscience of our entire
country and people around the world, and it has laid bare the racial
disparities in policing that Black Americans face every day but for too
long have been ignored. That is why millions of Americans are
peacefully protesting across our country demanding justice.
The Justice in Policing Act is bold and it is historic. It takes,
head-on, chokeholds, no-knock arrests, racial profiling, and the
militarization of the police. It will bring accountability and
transparency to police departments across our country and raise the
standards of the profession and instill best practices to ensure that
all Americans feel safe when interacting with law enforcement.
This legislation is the face of justice. It will make America fairer;
it will make America stronger; and every Member of this body should
vote for it.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I support the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act, which:
Changes the criminal conduct standard from ``willful'' to ``knowing
or reckless'';
Ends qualified immunity;
Funds independent prosecutors for police misconduct;
Strengthens the pattern and practice reviews at the Federal and State
level;
Establishes national standards for law enforcement;
Invests in public safety innovation grants;
Establishes a public national police misconduct registry;
Requires data collection on the use of force;
Bans chokeholds, and conditions Federal grants on banning chokeholds;
Bans no-knock warrants and racial profiling;
Permits deadly force only as a last resort;
Establishes a duty to intervene by other officers;
Mandates use of body cameras; and
Prohibits sexual acts with anyone under arrest, detention, or in
custody.
I have always supported law enforcement, and I still do, but today
the universal cries for change and justice demand that we hold law
enforcement to the same standards of justice as any other American by
passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act now.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube), a member of the Oversight
Committee and the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to this bill and
House Democrats' completely partisan attempt at actual law enforcement
reform. They call it the Justice in Policing Act, but this legislation
would not achieve justice for anyone. Instead, it would promote anarchy
and put our law enforcement officers' lives at risk. It would end legal
protection for our officers who actually follow their training and
protocol. It would take essential weapons and protective equipment away
from our police.
In a time like today where law enforcement officers are ambushed and
targeted just because of their profession, we are going take away their
ability to receive protective equipment?
So not only do the Democrats want to take away an officer's legal
protection if they follow their training and protocol, then they want
to take away their protective vests, protective shields, and protective
vehicles they get in military transfers that physically protect our
officers from bullets--none of which has anything to do with George
Floyd's death.
How does this make any sense? I can tell you it doesn't make any
sense to the mass majority of Americans who trust that someone will be
there when they call 911.
This legislation comes from the same party who has been calling to
defund the police. Members of this very body have called to defund our
police officers and our police departments.
I have to ask my colleagues how they think that would help. Defunding
the police won't solve any problems and only poses an extraordinary
risk to our citizens who depend on society's most basic governmental
service of protecting life and property.
This is nothing more than an outburst of political emotion and a
willingness to take advantage of civil unrest.
This civil unrest is not constructive; it is anarchy. It also does
not take into account the hundreds of thousands of good police officers
risking everything to keep us safe, officers like Julian Keen, Jr.,
from my State of Florida.
Unfortunately, you will never hear about the tragic death of this
Black officer in the mainstream media. It doesn't fit the left's
narrative, so they ignore it. However, in Florida, we will never forget
Officer Keen, who was laid to rest this week, and the positive
influence that he had on our community. After the criminal who killed
him found out that he was a police officer in plain clothes, he pulled
out a gun and killed him.
So it begs the question: Who is really responsible for the flaws in
law enforcement protocols? All of these departments with all of these
problems and issues are all run by Democratic commissions and
Democratic city councils.
This is not a Federal issue. This is a Minneapolis police issue or an
Atlanta police issue or a Ferguson issue or a Chicago issue, where just
this past weekend they had one of the most violent weekends over
Father's Day weekend.

This is an issue with Democratic leadership in these cities that have
failed to keep up with standards, training, and protocol. Some of these
departments have training standards dating back to the eighties.
``Why?'' you ask. Because their Democratic leadership has failed to
make necessary reforms in their departments.
And now it is the Federal Government's role to police local police
departments run by a Democratic city council or commission? Will those
commissions and leaders ever be held accountable?
Everyone in this Chamber wants justice for George Floyd and his
family, and they will get that in a court of law, where justice
belongs.
If the Democratic majority truly wants to reform our police
departments and if they truly want to fix the problems, then the focus
should be on the agencies with the problems and their leadership, not
passing a progressive messaging bill in an election year that they know
has no chance of becoming law.
This legislation doesn't get justice for anyone. Instead, it fails to
address the real underlying problems, while attempting to vilify our
law enforcement officers. It won't go anywhere in the Senate, and it
certainly won't go to the President's desk. So let's call it what it
is: a political messaging bill.
The longer we spend on this, the more time we waste not working on
actual, tangible solutions. Time to put

[[Page H2473]]

politics aside and work on real solutions where the problems are
actually located.

{time} 1630

Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say that there is absolutely nothing in our
bill that calls for defunding the police.
In fact, I recall that this body funded first responders in the
HEROES Act and that that bill is languishing in the Senate. So maybe my
good colleagues on the other side of the aisle might call up their
Senators and ask that they move on the HEROES Act. That might be the
first thing to do.
This bill is not against police. In fact, this bill is calling for
standards and training and accreditation. In conversations that I have
had with the Association of Police Chiefs and also the Fraternal Order
of Police, they said that there are 18,000 police departments across
the United States, and they have been fighting for accreditation and
standards for years, but it takes a very long time to do it department
by department, and they encouraged this part of the bill.
Now, granted, they don't love the whole bill, but this part of the
bill, they absolutely do.
To say that the only departments that have problems are run by
Democrats is either magical thinking, fantasy, or denial. That is just
not the case at all, and I would encourage my colleague on the other
side of the aisle to actually examine his State.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Bass for her
extraordinary work and leadership on this bill.
When history is written, it will ask: Why our Nation had to watch
George Floyd have the life drained from his body by the knee of a White
police officer to know that our system was broken? Why our country had
to learn Breonna Taylor's name to know that no-knock warrants get Black
people murdered in their rooms? Why our country had to see Ahmaud
Arbery hunted and lynched to know that there is an unshakeable target
on Black men in this country?
For too long, we let ignorance coddle white supremacists, we let
idleness shelter oppression and hate. But we can move from ignorance
and idleness to action. We can use the power of this body and this
Chamber to do more than acknowledge the movement. We can join it. We
can pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act today.
Because justice is a nation that didn't have to learn George Floyd,
Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery's names. That is justice.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Justice in Policing Act.
Over the past few weeks, we have seen tens of thousands of Americans
take to the street demanding justice not only for George Floyd, Breonna
Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, but also for the countless unnamed Black
Americans across the country who have been killed by the police.
The stark reality is that police brutality is a symptom of a larger
problem, and that problem is systemic racism.
Mr. Speaker, Black lives matter.
While we cannot legislate away what is in the hearts of people, we
can work to ensure that those in power are held accountable for their
actions.
The Justice in Policing Act is bold, transformative legislation that
will change the culture of law enforcement, and it would also help
build trust between law enforcement and our communities by addressing
systemic racism.
Mr. Speaker, the streets are crying out for bold and transformational
change.
Let's make sure that the people know that we see them, that we hear
them, and that at last we are doing something about it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Bass), my friend, for her long-time and courageous
action and leadership on these important issues.
Mr. Speaker, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Christopher Whitfield,
Chad Robertson, Terence Crutcher, Philando Castile, Alton Sterling,
Bettie Jones, Quintonio LeGrier, Sandra Bland, Alfontish Cockerham,
Walter Scott, Laquan McDonald, Eric Garner, Rekia Boyd, Darrin Hanna,
Calvin Cross, Leon Brackens, Fred Hampton, Mark Clark.
Mr. Speaker, these are the names of the Timeless 20, murdered by
rogue police officers, seven of them in my hometown of Chicago,
Illinois.
Thank God for H.R. 7120, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
There but for the grace of God go I.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus, led by
my friend, Chairwoman Karen Bass, New Jersey's great Senator Cory
Booker, and others for their work on this landmark legislation.
The need for serious structural reform cannot be clearer as our
country mourns the murder of George Floyd, just one of the most recent
instances of a long, painful history of violence and discrimination
against African American men and women in our country.
Right now we are witnessing an outpouring of support from all
communities, from all backgrounds, a collective movement working to end
bigotry and hatred, to advance racial equality, fighting the scourge of
racism that has held a grip on our country for far too long, and
affirming, yes, that indeed Black lives matter.

We should all be inspired by the overwhelmingly peaceful
demonstrations all across this country calling for justice, a freedom
which is a cornerstone of our Nation.
To make real change, we must continue to work together.
Mr. Speaker, I urge every one of my colleagues to join me in
supporting this important bill.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 7120, the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which bans chokeholds, creates a
national police misconduct registry, and makes it easier to prosecute
police for their brutality, among many other much-needed provisions.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus and
everybody who worked so hard to make sure that we have this moment.
The murder of George Floyd and the pleasure the murdering officer
seemed to take in his power over a struggling Black man are nothing
new.
My heart broke when I first saw the video footage of the murder, not
just for George Floyd and his loved ones, but also because this
brutality and all the police violence against Black men and women
before it have been used for centuries to terrorize, subjugate, and
silence the Black community.
I have been fighting against this since my first days as an activist
and member of the California State Assembly, when I took on then-Los
Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates, who popularized the chokehold
maneuver, which killed over a dozen Black men in Los Angeles between
1975 and 1982.
But now I would like to pay tribute to the brave men and women who
for so many years have confronted bad cops, racist cops, brutal police
chiefs, and the police protective leagues and unions who shield them
from accountability. I want to pay tribute to Angela Davis, Elaine
Brown, and the Black Panthers, who fought hard and sacrificed mightily
fighting bad cops. And then there is Reverend Al Sharpton, who took up
the fight against bad cops and assisted their families in getting legal
representation when these issues were not popular.

[[Page H2474]]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Reverend Jackson, who worked with me to
confront the racist L.A. Police Chief Daryl Gates. I want to thank
Colin Kaepernick, who took the knee and challenged the killings and
beatings of unarmed Blacks. And lastly, I want to thank Black Lives
Matter: uncompromising, disruptive, energetic, and dedicated to undoing
police killings and abuse.
Mr. Speaker, I want to challenge the mayors and members of city
councils and county commissioners who control police budgets to get the
courage to reimagine what it means to serve and protect and undo the
system of rogue cops that has gone on for far too long.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the protesters: I stand
with you.
No justice, no peace.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), and I ask unanimous
consent that he may control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carson of Indiana). Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Justice in Policing
Act and to applaud Congresswoman Bass and the Congressional Black
Caucus, because Black lives matter.
All lives can't matter until Black lives matter.
I am grateful that my bill, which makes it a crime for law
enforcement officers to engage in a sexual act with anyone in their
custody or while exercising their authority, has been included in this
bill.
Why is this important? Because sexual violence is the second-most
frequently reported form of police misconduct after excessive force,
yet in many States, officers can claim consent when accused of
assaulting someone in their custody.
Yesterday I held a town hall with Dr. John Gates, who shared his
experience as being a Black man in America, how a piece of his soul
dies every time a Black man or woman dies at the hands of police, how
he fears his deep love of America is unrequited.
Four hundred years ago, Black men and women were brought to these
shores in shackles, deprived of their humanity.
Even at the beginning of our country, African Americans were only
considered to be three-fifths of a person.
Where was our humanity then and where is it now?
Racism in America did not end with the abolition of slavery,
America's original sin. It did not end with the passage of the Civil
Rights Act of 1866 or 1871 or 1957 or 1964 or 1968 or even 1991. Some
inevitably touted their passage as the final chapter in this long
struggle to cure ourselves of the poison of racism.
Our history of pursuing civil rights in this Chamber is comprised of
starts and stops, successes and failures.
Of course, passing this bill today will not end racism, but it will
further the righteous cause of not just equality, but equity in this
country.
Most Americans are not racists, but not enough of us are antiracist,
and that is where we need to be.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk), my friend.
Mr. LOUDERMILK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the
time.
As I came here, I realized there is a lot happening in this country
today I don't understand. I really don't understand.
I have a lot of friends back home. I have friends who are Black and
White, Asian, Hispanic, every race, every nationality. I talk to them.
They don't understand what is happening in this Nation today.
I try to put my finger on it, but I am kind of losing track of where
we are going, and wherever it is we are going, why aren't we going
there together?

{time} 1645

Why do we keep dividing ourselves and using different issues to
divide ourselves?
I mean, I don't understand why George Floyd died under the knee of a
police officer. I really don't. I was horrified when I watched the
video of him. Regardless of what his race is, that was horrific. I
don't understand why that happened.
But I also don't understand why, in response to his seeming murder,
it seemed appropriate to destroy the homes, the businesses, the
livelihood of innocent people who had nothing to do with it in the same
community. I don't understand that.
I don't understand why retired Police Chief David Dorn was gunned
down to death as he was trying to protect one of these businesses, a
business owned by someone who had nothing to do with any of this.
I don't understand why Shay Mikalonis, a Las Vegas police officer,
was shot in the head while attempting to disperse a group of
protesters.
I don't understand why Dave Patrick Underwood, a Federal Protective
Service officer, was shot and killed while on duty amid protests in
Oakland, California. I can't wrap my hands around that.
I don't understand why four St. Louis police officers were shot at a
peaceful protest that turned violent--two shot in the leg, one shot in
the foot, and the fourth shot in the arm.
I don't understand why, in New York City, a police officer was
attacked and beaten by several men, while onlookers encouraged them to
do that--a police officer who had nothing to do with what happened to
George Floyd or the young man in Brunswick, Georgia, or in Atlanta.
Mr. Speaker, there is something else I don't understand. I don't
understand why, 3 years ago this month, I was on a baseball field when
a man crazed by extreme political ideology walked on the baseball field
and started shooting bullets at me and many of my colleagues. I don't
understand why that happened.
There is something else I don't understand. As I was there in the
line of fire, I don't understand why one of our Capitol Police
officers, who didn't know anything about me--we weren't friends at the
time--walked into the line of fire to draw fire away from me and one of
my colleagues so we could, hopefully, get to his partner and Matt Mika,
who had been wounded by the shooter.
The Bible tells us that there is no greater love than someone who
would willingly lay down their life for someone else. When I see that
officer walk out in the line of fire to protect me, who didn't know
me--a Black man; I am a White man--I sometimes wonder: Why do they do
that?
My dad served in the Army. He was on the D-day invasion. I often
wonder why they would step off those boats for people that they don't
know and walk into the line of fire. I mean, these are things that I
really don't understand.
I also don't understand why we are not working together to improve
law enforcement in this Nation. I don't know why the media and some
here want to take the action of one or two or a few and apply it to law
enforcement all across the board when I have seen what these law
enforcement officers do. They put their lives on the line daily for us.
I don't know what the answer is, but I do know those who do. I called
on the police chiefs in my district to get together, to talk about
this, and we met yesterday.
There is some stuff that we all agree on that they agree on. There
are plenty of things that they want to see happen. They all agree that
we should hold officers more accountable. They also agree that we
should have a database to track those officers who are bad officers so
they know that they are hiring someone who has had problems in other
States or in other jurisdictions. That is a problem for them.
This is because these police chiefs, they want good law enforcement.
They are there to serve the communities. They are there to uphold law
and order.
Something else I don't understand is, when we see what is going on,
on TV, why some of these officers actually show up to work the next
day. They go to try to protect the peaceful protesters, and they are
attacked by the violent ones and, in some cases, get no support out of
their leadership. I don't understand why they do that.

[[Page H2475]]

Our police chiefs said they need more training, that they need more
funding. One of the problems when it comes to cutting the budgets of
our police officers and our police departments and law enforcement,
usually the first thing that goes is training. They agree they need
more training.
We need more mental health support in this Nation. The police chiefs
told me that I would be surprised--and I am going to go. I am going
spend more time with them. I spend a lot of time with our law
enforcement already, but I am going to go ride with them to experience
some of this. I encourage all of my colleagues to do this.
They said they spend an unbelievable amount of time on the calls of
mental health issues that they really can't do anything about because
the person hasn't committed a crime. They may be on the verge of
suicide, but they haven't committed a crime so they can't arrest them.
They just have to stay there with them. Sometimes, they may get
somebody to come out, or they may not. It puts them in a very difficult
position. So, they are all about doing more, doing more with mental
health issues.
There is a lot that we support. Now, I did hear it said earlier that
this is not defunding the police. But let me tell you what 100 percent
of the police chiefs in that meeting said to me: If you remove
qualified immunity, you will be shutting down the police departments in
America because they will not be able to retain their officers. That
was 100 percent of the police chiefs, and they are police chiefs in all
types of demographics. I have part of Atlanta. I go all the way up into
the rural parts of Georgia.
But they 100 percent said, if you remove our qualified immunity, we
will not keep police officers, and you will shut down law enforcement
in this Nation as we know it.

There was one other thing that they were 100 percent behind: Senator
Tim Scott's bill. Every one of them was 100 percent behind what was in
that bill. Now, a lot of it they already do. They banned chokeholds.
They are way ahead of a lot of different departments.
There are some things in this bill they agree with, but they are also
100 percent--100 percent--against this bill. One hundred percent of the
police chiefs I met with in my district, which was virtually all but a
couple of departments, were against this bill and the way it is written
right now.
The one thing that they asked for me to portray is: Let's not paint
all law enforcement with a broad brush. Those police officers who are
risking their lives, those good ones, they feel like they are getting
kicked in the rear end by the politicians, local and at the Federal
level.
They want us to work together. They want to see us work together. If
we are going to call for unity in this Nation, then we better start
right here. Instead of trying to ramrod a political bill that is not
going to go anywhere, and we know it, we should be here working
together to get something done.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what I don't understand right now, why we are
not doing that.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am so sorry that my colleague on the other side of the aisle is so
confused and has so much trouble understanding. Perhaps it might help
if he studied more history, U.S. history, to understand that why that
knee was on George Floyd's neck was because of racism in this country.
Perhaps my colleague on the other side of the aisle could go to
Alabama to the Legacy Museum so that he could understand a little bit
about U.S. history.
Perhaps my colleague on the other side of the aisle could go to the
National Memorial for Lynching and learn a little bit about his State
of Georgia, where many of the lynchings were carried out by law
enforcement officers.
When he said that 100 percent of police chiefs were against this
bill, it is just not true. I have met with police chiefs, and they
support parts of the bill. The National Organization of Black Law
Enforcement Officers support this bill. The Fraternal Order of Police
are not completely opposed to this bill.
So, I would like to work with my colleague on the other side of the
aisle to help him understand a little bit more of the history of the
United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the
Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).
Ms. PLASKETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and chairwoman of the
Congressional Black Caucus, who has led us in this fight here on this
floor as we make a historic movement toward justice.
I am so upset that my colleague, my classmate, left before I could
help him understand. I wanted to give him books that he could read. He
could read ``Blind Spot: Hidden Biases of Good People,'' ``White
Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism,''
``The New Jim Crow.''
And if he didn't want to read a book, he could look at a documentary.
How about ``13th?''
But if he doesn't want to do that, if he wants to support this bill,
I will give him a good cop story about why to do it. I will ask my
colleagues to support this, if not for George Floyd and the countless
others killed at the hand of police, or for those of us Black Americans
who live in fear of police brutality, I ask you to support it for a
good cop.
I ask you to support it for my father, who called me up and told me
this is a good bill; a cop who, for 30 years, was on the New York City
police force and said the biggest threat to every good cop is a bad
cop; who says that the biggest threat to every good cop is a brutal
police officer and that this present system will put down a good
policeman trying to do the right thing, to speak up for what is right,
and will surely keep down a good Black cop.
Or for my four sons who received the talk from that veteran police
officer who warned what can happen to you on the street, in a squad
car, or in the basement of a police precinct, where often the system is
rigged so that good police can't always help you. Support it for those
sons who, despite the best education and decorum, fear a siren or a
police light, the police brutality that we all have.
As we advance this critical work, support this for all Americans.
Speak the truth that Black lives matter.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks from the gentlewoman
from the Virgin Islands.
My question that I have for this body as we sit here today is: Why
aren't we amending the legislation? Why aren't we offering and allowing
amendments in this great body, in the people's House? A general
question.
When I go home, and I assume you all have the same thing, they say:
What's wrong with Washington? Why don't you actually sit down around a
table and try to solve problems?
I think this is one of the things that is most perplexing, and we see
it in the Senate as well, the so-called greatest deliberative body.
Yet, we saw what happened in the Senate, where there was an offer for
20 amendments, a manager's amendment from the gentleman from South
Carolina, Senator Scott, and that offer was rejected.
Here, we are not even really having an opportunity to offer an
amendment, have a serious debate. I don't question at all the motives
that are behind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in terms
of putting forward legislation to try to address a problem we all
perceive as a problem we want to address.
I look at the bill that we have here; it is a Republican bill. There
is a lot of overlap. There are some policies in it that are in
agreement. I just don't understand why we can't start with some nucleus
of a bill and offer 20 or 30 amendments, vote on the amendments as a
deliberative body, the United States Congress, the people's House.

Why can't we just offer amendments and vote on them? Then, wherever
the amendments take us, at the end of that, vote on a bill. That used
to happen.
I was a staffer in the Senate, and we had 50 amendments on different
bills. My staff today, they look at that as some sort of relic of
history, as this thing that we used to do because we don't do it
anymore. I literally don't understand it.
It is a question on both sides of the aisle, why we do not sit down
and offer legislation and go through it. Start

[[Page H2476]]

with a nucleus and then amend it. We have things here we agree on.
On issues such as qualified immunity, issues such as no-knock
warrants, issues that involve asset forfeiture, issues that go to the
heart of liberty and the heart of the ability of an individual American
not to be overwhelmed by law enforcement, there is agreement, but we
would like to have conversations about those issues. There is.
My friend from Michigan, now an independent, offered legislation
about qualified immunity. I don't agree with it.

{time} 1700

I don't agree with a full abolition of qualified immunity. I don't.
My grandfather is a chief of police. I know we have all got law
enforcement in our communities, and we are worried about what that will
do to our law enforcement.
We are seeing it right now. We have 104 shootings in Chicago. We had
14 killings. We had a 3-year-old boy shot on the street. We have
teenagers getting killed, a 324 percent increase in New York shootings.
We had a guy get shot in the back of his head while changing his tire
in New York.
We have lawlessness occurring, and this body ought to address it. The
Attorney General of the United States ought to address it. We ought to
enforce the laws of the United States. We ought to have a debate here
about that. We ought to have a debate here about ensuring or protecting
the citizenry of the United States. It is our fundamental
responsibility. It is our job.
That is our duty in the Constitution, to secure the blessings of
liberty. Yet we are just going to sit here and take shots across the
building with a Senate bill and a House bill with no resolution, and
then we are going to fly home tomorrow.
In what universe does that make sense? In what universe is that the
right thing to do? In what universe are the American people looking at
the people's House and saying, ``Job well done, you all, well done,''
when people are dying, literally, in the streets of our country right
now of all races?
What were the races of the murders in Chicago this last weekend of
104? What was the race of the 3-year-old boy who was shot?
These are real issues. Why don't we just sit around the table and
figure it out instead of litigating this in the press and taking shots
across the Capitol dome?
Senator Scott is a good man offering a good bill, and the Speaker of
the House says that we are trying to murder George Floyd again?
Come on. It is our job to secure the blessings of liberty. What I ask
of this Chamber is that we sit down and figure out legislation to
actually secure that and support our law enforcement.
Seventy-six million interactions of law enforcement with civilians:
99 percent of those don't result in any kind of taking them in, and 98
percent of those don't result in any harm.
Mr. Speaker, let's go do our job. Let's look at the legislation.
Let's work together and figure out how to actually do the job of
securing the blessings of liberty.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we ought to come together, we ought to reason
together, and we would get a better product in the legislative process.
Sadly, our friends in the United States Senate don't always do that.
Sadly, when my friend's party was in the leadership, it didn't always
do that. And, yes, from time to time, we didn't do that.
This is an issue of critical, immediate concern, and there is a way
to get to where the gentleman from Texas suggested: pass legislation in
the Senate; pass legislation here; we will go to conference; and we
will try to resolve our differences so we can pass a bill.
I have talked to the gentlewoman from California, the former speaker
of the California Assembly, and she has told me that she doesn't want a
message; she wants a law. And I am absolutely convinced that is true.
She understands the legislative process very well. But in order to
initiate that process, we need to pass a bill. Of course,
unfortunately, we have some constraints here on amendments because of
the coronavirus.
Having said that, I hope that we pass this bill, and I hope the
Senate passes a bill. Now, unfortunately, they will have to come to
agreement and get 60 votes. I say ``unfortunately'' because Mr.
McConnell is not prepared to get to 60 votes. We don't have to get to
60 votes. Here, the majority rules. The majority will rule today, and
the majority sponsored this bill.
Mr. Speaker, on the rostrum in front of me there are inscribed five
words: ``union,'' ``justice,'' ``tolerance,'' ``peace,'' and
``liberty.'' It is our individual and collective responsibility as
Members of this House, the people's House, to ensure that all of these
virtues are upheld in the United States.
There is justifiable anger in this country because justice is not
being upheld. That does not mean it has never been upheld, but it ought
to be always upheld.
There is a deep frustration because some of those charged with
enforcing our laws are doing so without tolerance and in a way that
disregards the rights and welfare of victims without just cause. That
does not damn all members of the police--in fact, not the majority--but
it does damn actions that are inconsistent with justice, peace,
tolerance, and liberty.
Many of our people will never see the full light of liberty because
of the color of their skin. The result has been a broken union and a
broken peace. That is why this House must act. We must act to make it
clear, beyond any doubt to every person in this country, that Black
lives matter.
For far, far too long in America, Black lives did not matter. Too
many people who lived in America were chattels. Their lives were
counted in the dollars, by what that property was worth, not in their
human value. For far, far too long, Mr. Speaker, that has been a
reality and a legacy of slavery, segregation, and prejudice.
We must act to ensure that law enforcement in every jurisdiction
understands that each human being is entitled to equal justice under
the law and to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We must act to ensure that no longer will we see horrific images and
videos of unarmed Black men and women being killed by those who were
sworn to uphold the law and keep the peace.
The bill we are voting on today is long overdue. I congratulate the
Congressional Black Caucus, Ms. Bass, Senator Harris, and Senator
Booker.
This bill will ban chokeholds like the kind that killed George Floyd
last month, in whose memory this bill is named.
I knelt on the marble floor. My knee rejected that as something that
it didn't want to do. It was not only painful, but it was a long time:
8 minutes and 46 seconds. That was not to restrain George Floyd. He was
restrained.
It would also ban no-knock warrants of the kind that led to the
murder of Breonna Taylor in her own home that was mistakenly broken
into by the police, and it would condition Federal funding to State and
local governments on their banning racial profiling and adopting best
practices for police training as identified by the Obama
administration's Task Force on 21st Century Policing.
Moreover, this bill would facilitate, under appropriate
circumstances, the ability of victims to be compensated for their loss.
A right without a remedy is no right at all.
I want to thank Chairwoman Bass and the Congressional Black Caucus
for introducing this bill of which I am proud to be a sponsor, and I
would like to thank, as well, Chairman Nadler and the Judiciary
Committee for moving swiftly to mark up this legislation so we can have
it on the floor today.
I said ``swiftly.'' It has been centuries that the dark blot of
slavery and the dehumanization of some of our fellow Americans has been
a reality.
Senator McConnell has already said that the Republican-led Senate
will not even consider this bill. That is not surprising. There are 275
bills, all of which have Republican votes, sitting on Senator
McConnell's desk--or maybe wastebasket--so it is not surprising that he
won't consider this bill either, any more than he considered Justice
Garland by a President who had 11 months left on his term. We will see

[[Page H2477]]

what the people say in a few short months.
If we do not consider this bill, it will be an egregious mistake and
a failure to honor one of the most sacred of our Nation's precepts:
that we are all created equal and we should be judged not by the color
of our skin--which happens too often, too frequently, and too
regularly--not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our
character and the caliber of our conduct.
By ignoring this bill, Senator McConnell is ignoring the cries for
justice from Blacks, from Whites, and from Americans of all different
colors and of all different religions, all who were distinguished by
one facet or another, but they have in common that they are Americans
governed by a Constitution and laws of our country. Senator McConnell
will be ignoring the history and legacy of slavery and segregation that
has led to these acts.
My colleague mentioned Montgomery, Alabama, and a number of the
museums. Bryan Stevenson has a museum, and he says the first thing you
do when you discriminate against people is you dehumanize them. It
should not be a surprise, if we have, for centuries, dehumanized people
of color that, from time to time and too often, they are not treated as
human beings.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle:
Vote for this bill.
Vote for this bill even if you don't think it is perfect.
Vote for this bill because you want to say that we want justice for
every American.
Vote for this bill because you want to say that we want a remedy for
wrongs.
Vote for this bill to restore justice.
Vote for this bill to protect liberty.
Vote for this bill to promote tolerance.
Vote for this bill to restore peace to the families of victims and
entire communities that live in fear.
And vote for this bill to prove our Union is not only a union of
States, but a nation of free people united in our common pursuit of
justice and opportunity for all.
The people's House needs to do its job for all the people.
This is not an antipolice bill. It is a bill that cries out--whatever
our discipline, including Members of Congress--that we act consistent
with the law, consistent with the Constitution, and consistent with our
moral values. We will not leave these words to only be inscribed in
wood, but enshrined in our hearts and in our laws: union, justice,
tolerance, peace, and liberty not for some, but for all.
These are neither Democratic principles nor Republican ones. These
are American principles. These are, in many ways, unique principles
honored by this country in its rhetoric. This bill is to honor those in
its reality. That is why all who believe in these principles should
vote for this bill.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, when the Democratic
majority in the House won't accept any of the Republican amendments and
the Democratic minority in the Senate won't accept any of the 20
amendments that Senator Tim Scott offered, I think it is a little
disingenuous to say that Majority Leader McConnell is the problem
towards bipartisanship here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Palmer).
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill
because it would result in more crime and fewer people willing to serve
in law enforcement.
This bill lowers the standard for mens rea and basically eliminates
qualified immunity for law enforcement officers, so, in the course of
doing their job, an officer could go to prison for unintentionally
breaking the law.
Who wants to serve in a job where they are attacked, underpaid,
overworked, and, under this bill, possibly charged as a criminal?

{time} 1715

Without qualification, what happened to George Floyd was horrific,
and those involved deserve the full punishment under the law. Mr.
Floyd's death was a brutal and callous assault that has undermined the
public trust of law enforcement officers that we depend on to keep our
communities safe. Notwithstanding, we cannot undermine the entire law
enforcement community because of it. Every group has bad actors.
Congress is not without examples of such. But we can't continue to
paint all law enforcement officers as villains.
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the brave men and women who keep our
communities, families, and this very Capitol safe. They take an oath to
run towards danger when everyone runs away. In fact, two officers,
David Bailey and Crystal Griner did just that when they kept my
colleagues and me from being killed on the baseball field 3 years ago.
I am convinced that several of my colleagues and I would have been
killed or grievously wounded, as was Steve Scalise, were it not for
the courage and dedication to duty of Officers Bailey and Griner. They
are heroes, and I stand with them, not with these lawless vandals who
have occupied some of our cities, who are pressuring my colleagues
across the aisle to, if not eliminate our police departments, make them
ineffective.
Every day, somewhere in our Nation, police officers put their lives
on the line and far too many of them lose their lives or suffer serious
injuries as they faithfully and honorably do their jobs in service to
their communities. I will not support any effort to make their jobs
more dangerous while also leaving our communities vulnerable to the
lawless acts and senseless violence that we are witnessing across our
Nation today.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, I
appreciate the fact that he respectfully referenced Senator Tim Scott's
bill in the Senate. I wish that the Speaker of this House of
Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, had made a similar respectful response
to that bill, as I wish Senator Dick Durbin had made a respectful
response to that bill. The majority leader called on us to work with
our colleagues across the aisle on this legislation. Had he been
serious about that, there would have been a discussion before this bill
ever came to the floor. But there wasn't one.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from North Dakota has pointed out, there
will be no amendments from the Republicans that substantially improve
this bill, except that there aren't any on the Senate side either. So
it is disingenuous to say that the Republicans are not interested in
pursuing justice through sensible law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 38
minutes remaining.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Kelly).
Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to be frank. A bill like this should have
been passed years ago. We know that chokeholds are dangerous, the same
with no-knock warrants in nonviolent Federal cases. This legislation
would have prevented George Floyd's death and the death of so many
other Black and Brown people in America.
We should have acted when Laquan McDonald was killed in Chicago--you
remember, ``16 shots and a cover-up.'' Or Rekia Boyd in Chicago. Or we
should have acted when Tamir Rice was killed for playing with a toy gun
that anyone could buy at their local Dollar General. Yet, still today,
after watching the life and oxygen drain from the face of George Floyd,
my colleagues on the other side still defend the status quo. Some parts
of this bill are not new, but we could never get them passed.
I was part of Speaker Ryan's task force on police accountability: 18
months of meeting with the public and nothing came of it. Well, not
this time, because George Floyd deserves better. Sandra Bland deserves
better. Breonna Taylor, Laquan McDonald, and Oscar Grant deserve
justice. And this is from the niece of three cops, the cousin of one
cop, the auntie of two cops, but also the mother of a Black son and a
Black daughter.
Mr. Speaker, I just have to say one more thing. I get so sick of
hearing Chicago being bantered about. I was here for 5 years and could
not get one gun violence prevention bill passed or signed on to by my
colleagues on the other side. It wasn't until the Democrats took over
that we could at least

[[Page H2478]]

get background checks passed and the Charleston loophole. But, again,
we can't get anything called in the Senate.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Dakota has 28
minutes remaining.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I was born in 1953. Brown v. Board of
Education had not been decided. The Civil Rights Act was not yet law,
and the Voting Rights Act was more than a decade away. African
Americans could be denied sitting on a bus, a room at a hotel, entry
into a school, solely because of the color of their skin.
For my three daughters, such a time is still somewhat unimaginable to
them. They cannot fathom being refused entry into a restaurant or being
legally barred from living in a neighborhood, because the laws on the
books said it was the right thing to do. These are the realities of my
generation, for I recall getting off a train and seeing ``colored'' and
``white.'' But it is not the realities for my daughters.
But they do know about a world where Black men and women can be
stopped by a police officer on the flimsiest of pretexts, and they
understand the pain of seeing unarmed Black men and women shot, choked,
and kneeled upon until they take their last breath.
I now also have a one-year-old granddaughter. She does not know about
mass incarceration. She has not seen videos of Black men being murdered
by those that are supposed to protect the law. I do hope she learns
about these incidents, like the murder of George Floyd or Eric Garner
or Sean Bell, but in the same way my daughter has learned about
segregation: Through books and movies and history and classes. I hope
she views our current failings as unimaginable problems from an era far
passed.
And this Congress can make a difference. Let's not wait now. The
camera of history is rolling, and it rolled bad on those in 1953. Let
it not roll bad on us today.
Mr. Speaker, let us pass this act. This bill will not take us all the
way to that destination, but it is a real step towards a just world.
Let's pass this bill.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
profound legislation, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a long
overdue step towards ending the scourge of police brutality in America.
I am deliberate when I call this a step, however important. We have
so much more to do to dismantle racist systems that have infected our
country since before we were a country and, indeed, were part of our
foundational documents.
Genocide of Native Americans. Slavery. Jim Crow. Mass incarceration.
And many forms of racist injustice ongoing as I speak.
Mr. Speaker, this month I marched with 6,000 of my constituents in
Macomb County crying out for major, structural change in what may have
been the biggest antiracism rally that county has ever seen. If we pass
this bill and pat ourselves on the back for having done something, we
will have failed the people. Instead, let's pass this bill today and
continue to work to end systemic racism tomorrow.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I have heard the
cries and the screams from the street ``Black lives matter.''
Mr. Speaker, as a Black woman elected to Congress, I feel the
generations of my people calling on our government time and time again
for decades and decades to enact transformational legislation, to
finally have a law on the books to stop police assaults on Black lives.
Sadly, as a country we can no longer use the excuse of being blind to
racism. We can no longer use the excuse of being deaf to the cries of
justice, for justice in this country, or the arrogance of White
privilege. Our country, our people, the citizens of this country are
calling on us to come together and to join America and vote for this
bill, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act now.
Mr. Speaker, in our country, we pledge one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. It is time to act now.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the
great State of California (Ms. Barragan).
Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, the time for change is now.
Not next month.
Not after more studies.
Not after more deaths.
Now.
Our country demands it.
We, as a Congress, have listened. Today, we must act.
For George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, and the countless
others, we demand justice. We demand change.
In my very own district, just last week, a young Latino kid, 18 years
old, Andres Guardado, was shot in the back by police. There were no
body cameras. Surveillance video gone. And Andres is gone, with six
police bullets in his back.
The public should not need to call for a third-party investigation
into these deaths. We should be able to trust the system.
More importantly, they should not need investigations because the
killings must stop--today.
Mr. Speaker, we must pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her tremendous
leadership.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important start--not an end--of what
must be done to stop racism in America. So much more must be
accomplished by the local police departments across the country. This
is more than a few bad apples. It is a virus that has too often
infected the orchard. This is not a time for meaningless gestures or
watered-down proposals, but for real, meaningful action.
Black lives matter because for so often and for so long they have
been the subject of violence and prejudices as though they did not.
In Austin, Mike Ramos was fleeing. Javier Ambler couldn't breathe.
Both were unarmed, unthreatening, and both are now dead. While
technology has literally brought this violence into our homes, we also
recognize how many incidences have never been reported.
Failure by some law enforcement personnel to protect Black citizens,
threatens the very core of our democracy. What we do today is not only
about protecting those victims, but it is also with respect and thanks
to the many dedicated police officers who put their lives on the line
daily for our security.
What we need is to reach across the divide, to have protesters
educating police about their concerns, and officers listening and
affirming that they want to be a part of the solution that we offer
today.

{time} 1730

Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Mrs. Beatty).
Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, it is indisputable that George Floyd should
be alive today. His killing was the result of police violence that too
many Black Americans have experienced, many in my district.
Black lives matter.
I was honored to attend George Floyd's funeral and proud to support
this historic bill in honor of his name.
Today I breathe--today we breathe--in honor of George Floyd. This
bill will honor his life. And in the words of his

[[Page H2479]]

daughter: My daddy will change the world.
I ask all of my colleagues to help change the world by ending some of
the most dangerous and egregious practices of law enforcement in our
Nation. Beyond this bill, we must get to the root of structural racism
that has plagued our country for centuries.
As I have called out in my resolution, H. Res. 990, racism is a
national crisis. We must move toward a truth and reconciliation
process.
Today, my colleagues, we go from agony to action. I support this
bill, and I ask you to join me.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Espaillat).
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.
One month ago, George Floyd was murdered. As his 6-year-old astutely
said in the days following, ``Daddy changed the world.''
In this bill, there are several policies that have been highlighted
in the Harlem Manifesto Against Police Brutality. The Harlem Manifesto
advocates for a ban on chokeholds and the knee. It demilitarizes police
and ends qualified immunity.
The Harlem Manifesto also includes a provision to ensure that police
officers can be held accountable for excessive force. The standard
should not be willful intent but reckless intent. We must pass this
bill and eradicate the cultural violence in police departments across
the country.
The best anticrime policies are antipoverty policies. We must
continue this fight. Black lives matter.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, for those who are not sure as to why
we are here today, please allow me to explain it to you.
We are here today because Ahmaud Arbery's murder was captured on
video.
We are here today because Ms. Cooper was captured on video as she
used incited language, the language of a Black man assaulting a White
woman, to summon the police.
We are here today because all 8 minutes and 46 seconds of George
Floyd's demise were captured on video.
And the American people don't like what they have seen. They don't
agree with what they see. They know that they have been lied to. They
know that, if these things hadn't been captured on video, we would not
be here today.
Carlyle was right: ``No lie can live forever.''
William Cullen Bryant was right: ``Truth, crushed to earth, shall
rise again.''
Dr. King was right: ``The arc of the moral universe is long, but it
bends towards justice.''
We are here today to bend the arc of the moral universe towards
justice.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Mfume), the newest member of the Congressional Black
Caucus.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, to my friends on the other side of the aisle,
every now and then in our Nation's history we find ourselves at a
singular, searing, and seminal moment, a moment such as this.
And so, whether it was the great debates of the 1960s and the civil
rights bill or the granting of women the right to vote 100 years ago or
the debates of war and peace which predate all of us, this is our
moment. And it is our moment to do the right thing on behalf of the
faceless and nameless men and women who have lost their lives as a
result of police violence.
So when future generations peer through the telescope of time and
look back on us and this day, let them say of us that, when it came to
addressing the issue of racist, ugly, violent, criminal actions by bad
police officers, we did not waiver, that we did not flinch, that we did
not shirk our responsibility to do the right thing. The right thing is
passing the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, and to do so on
behalf of all those who are not here to pass it and to vote and to
speak for themselves.
I strongly urge passage. This is the moment that we have to act in,
and it will be a fleeting moment.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the importance of the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, and I am honored to stand with my
colleagues here in Congress, and certainly with the Congressional Black
Caucus, to combat the epidemic of racial injustice.
As we know, this bill creates unprecedented reforms, needed reforms.
But the first step is to admit we have a problem, and apparently we
haven't done that as a Chamber in the whole.
This is not a standalone issue. It is one that continues today. It is
about ending racial profiling, transforming the culture of policing. It
is not us versus them. It is we, together.
My hometown of Camden, just 10 years ago, had the highest murder rate
in North America, called the most dangerous town, but reinvented their
police department--not alone, but together, changed their culture, now,
working together, always reviewing what they are doing: How can we do
this better? Sixty-three percent less murders, 73 percent drop in the
crime rate.

It can be done, but we have to do it together.
The President and Senate Republicans, seriously short. They merely
are suggestions, an insult to us in this House.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN of California. Mr. Speaker, our country is in crisis. We
are broken by generations of systemic racial injustice, and it is clear
that only real change in action will allow us to begin putting the
fragments back together.
Millions of Americans across the country and in my district are
demanding accountability and reform to a structure that has allowed
police brutality and injustice against people of color for far too
long.
As we continue hearing new names of those who have lost their lives
to this system, it is clear: Thoughts and prayers have never been
enough, and they are not enough now.
We can no longer stand idly by, failing to act on behalf of our Black
American communities in pain. The Justice in Policing Act will help
bring about the long overdue changes that we need, to strengthen
transparency and accountability in our law enforcement.
We need to ban unnecessary and excessive uses of force, including
chokeholds, and we need to end the militarization of local police
departments. That is why we must pass the Justice in Policing Act today
and begin the first of many steps towards a more just system, ensuring
that George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and countless others are not
forgotten.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan) will control the balance of the Republican time.
There was no objection.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Velazquez).
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, in nearly every city and town across this
country, the American people are raising their collective voice for
change. Our Nation is having a long overdue conversation about race and
policing, and we are finally acknowledging Black lives matter.
But it takes more than words and hashtags. The American people want
true reform. This bill takes tangible steps in that direction. It ends
qualified immunity. The bill bans chokeholds. No-knock warrants will
become a thing of the past.
We are all outraged by the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor,
Rayshard Brooks, Eric Garner, and so many others. However, anger is not
enough. The American people are demanding action.
This bill offers meaningful, transformative change, not lip service
or half measures being floated by the President and Senate Republicans.
The time is now. History will judge us on how we respond to this
moment. Vote ``yes.''

[[Page H2480]]

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Justice in Policing Act establishes a bold,
transformative vision of policing in America. Never again should the
world be subjected to witnessing what we saw in the streets in
Minneapolis, the slow murder of an individual by a uniformed police
officer.
The world is witnessing the birth of a new movement in our country.
This movement has now spread to many nations around the world, with
thousands marching to register their horror and hearing the cry, ``I
can't breathe,'' people marching to demand not just change, but
transformative change that ends police brutality, that ends racial
profiling and ends the practice of denying Americans the ability to sue
when they have been injured, that denies local jurisdictions the power
to fire and prosecute offending officers.
Black communities have been, sadly, marching for over 100 years
against police abuse and for the police to protect and serve our
communities like they do elsewhere.
In the 1950s, news cameras exposed the brutal horror of legalized
racism in the form of segregation. The news cameras of the 1950s
exposed the brutal treatment of people who dared to challenge the
system. News cameras exposed to the world that Black people did not
have the same constitutional protections, that freedom of speech, that
the right to assemble and protest were not rights extended to all
African Americans.
Seventy years later, it is the cell phone camera that has exposed the
continuation of violence directed at African Americans by the police
and exposed the reality that the right of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness is not guaranteed to all African Americans at all
times.
Now, the movement for police accountability has become a rainbow
movement, reflecting the wonderful diversity of our Nation and world.
The power of this movement will help move Congress to act, to pass
legislation that not only holds police accountable and increases
transparency, but assists police departments to change the culture.
Now, I know that change is hard, but I am certain that police
officers, professionals who risk their lives every day, are deeply
concerned about their profession and do not want to work in an
environment that requires their silence when they know that a fellow
officer is abusing the public.
I am certain police officers would like to be free to intervene and
stop an officer from using 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. A profession where you have the
power to kill should be a profession that requires highly trained
officers who are accountable to the public.

I am so proud to be here on this historic day, where, for the first
time in I have no idea how many years, the House of Representatives
will pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I sat through this through a committee
hearing, a markup, a Rules Committee, and all day here today, and I
have heard a lot about how now is the time for bold action and now is
the time for transformational change. But what we don't spend nearly
enough time talking about is whether what we are doing and what law we
are passing is actually good policy, whether this policy will work in
as diverse communities as we have from one end of this great Nation to
another.
If there was ever a subject that requires nuanced and thoughtful
deliberation, police reform is it. Unfortunately, we seem to be
incapable of that in this town at this time.
That is unfortunate because the American people want reform, and that
reform has to start with the basic recognition that 2 million out of
2.3 million people who are incarcerated in this country are
incarcerated in State and local prisons and this inherently becomes a
community action.

{time} 1745

Law enforcement is mostly a local function. And when we are talking
about reform, we must always recognize that these laws must work at
2:30 a.m. in dangerous, unpredictable, and often violent situations,
whether that officer is patrolling downtown Washington, D.C., or he is
on a rural North Dakota road where backup is measured in hours and not
minutes.
We can move quickly and thoughtfully. We can work toward policies
that hold bad officers and derelict departments accountable without
making it harder for good cops to do their jobs. Part of how we do that
is by recognizing some uncomfortable truths. I will be the first one to
say that systemic racial disparities exist in our criminal justice
system, not just in law enforcement, but throughout, whether it is in
pretrial release programs, charging decisions that determine minimum
mandatory sentences, facially neutral enhancements that have disparate
impacts on minority communities.
But we also need to recognize the truth that, when we talk about
these things, we have been talking about them for years and long before
President Trump was elected. In fact, if your claim is historical and
systemic racism, then it is sometimes hard to believe that all of these
occurred as of January 3, 2017, when President Trump took office.
For all the good intentions, we have to recognize the fact that this
bill is not just going to chase bad cops out of the business, but it is
going to dissuade good people from continuing in law enforcement. And
that is going to make our communities less safe.
This bill makes it easier to sue law enforcement. It makes it easier
to prosecute cops, all cops, not just bad cops. It ensures that there
is a public database of all complaints, whether they are completely
frivolous or not.
It takes away their ability to use equipment, whether they need it or
not. It takes away the ability for officers to use lifesaving tools,
whether they need it or not.
Combined with what is going on, and a combination between peaceful
protests and violent rioting, I have a friend and officers in
Minneapolis just this week have responded to calls where they are being
spit on and had bottles thrown at them where they are responding to
murders.
To say that these types of policies and this type of rhetoric is not
going to chase good people out of this profession is just not true.
Republicans in the Judiciary Committee did offer substantive and
quality amendments. We offered amendments to require recordings of
noncustodial interviews to enhance the use of body cameras by Federal
officers. We offered what I consider is reasonable collective
bargaining reform so that bad cops can actually get fired from their
jobs. We exempted our Border Patrol from the ban on the purchase of
surplus military equipment. We also even offered an amendment for a ban
on no-knock warrants. We just asked to collect the data during the
process while we were doing it.
So to say that everything we offered and what we tried to accomplish
either here or on the other side was not relevant to the conversation
just simply isn't true.
But there are things we agree on. We agree with body cameras for law
enforcement. We agree that more transparency is the best thing.
Congresswoman Bass has talked a lot--and I think this is actually
accurate--we wouldn't know a lot about these things without cell phone
cameras and what has gone on. That is a reality that exists. But the
other reality that exists is that we all are functioning in a digital
society. Asking our Federal law enforcement to come into the 21st
century along with us is not a terribly irrelevant nor unreasonable
request.
We agree with making sure we have a way to track officers. We don't
necessarily agree on the exact specifics, but there is a way to get
there.
I think everyone agrees that more de-escalation training is
incredibly important, and that doesn't matter if you are in a diverse
community or not.
Everybody who has talked to law enforcement knows they deal with way
too many mental health issues. We agree with those resources.

[[Page H2481]]

We all want to hold bad cops accountable and departments that have
too many bad incidents accountable. Many of us on our side agree with
qualified immunity reform. I tend to agree with my friend Congressman
Roy when he said we want significant reform. I would also argue we need
to replace it with something.
The problem with no-knock warrants isn't that they are there; it is
that they are overused. The problem with military equipment isn't that
it is utilized; it is that, in some departments, it is overused.
But if we continue to paint with a broad brush all of these things
and have it affect every department, regardless of how urban or rural
in nature, regardless if they have a history of abuse or none at all,
then we run into the real risk of alienating the people who most
closely and most want reform.
I will end on something that I think is fairly hopeful, and I do have
hope because I think this is the most criminal justice reform in
Congress we have ever seen. There are Members on both sides of the
aisle who are serious about marijuana legislation. If you want to talk
about a system in the criminal code that has a disparate racial impact,
I am not sure you need to go a whole lot further than marijuana reform.
We have had people on both sides of the aisle who have done the
juvenile justice act, the justice reinvestment act, trial penalties,
clemency for unduly harsh prisons. We have a lot of places we can do
that. I think it bears repeating, and I just truly, truly mean this.
The FIRST STEP Act, which was passed by the last Congress that was
bicameral, bipartisan, and advocated for by this President, is the
single most important criminal justice reform that has probably ever
come out of this Congress.
I don't say that from being a Republican politician. I say that from
practicing Federal criminal defense under both the Bush administration
and the Obama administration.

So in 3 years at the Federal level, we have gotten more done. But it
is called the FIRST STEP Act for a reason, because there is a second
step. I have had the opportunity through all the rhetoric and all the
partisan fighting and everything, I have also gotten to meet great,
thoughtful people on both sides of the aisle. And people on my side of
the aisle who, as short a time ago as several years, didn't believe in
some of these things believe in them now.
It is not just in the Federal Government. States all across the
country, from Colorado to New Jersey to North Dakota to Texas, are
doing criminal justice reform. They are doing it thoughtfully and
moving it forward.
I find it unfortunate that we are going to be here and that we
couldn't have this conversation. We are going to do what we do so well
in this town: talk and talk and talk and then fail to have action on
anything that has a realistic chance of becoming law.
I think, unfortunately, that is where this is going. But I do have
hope because I know there are a lot of people on both sides of the
aisle who truly want to work on this. You don't have to go very far;
350 Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have already
cosponsored bills related to criminal justice reform.
So, we will get this done, maybe not as soon as we could have, but I
am hopeful we will rise to the moment.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished chair of the
Democratic Caucus, and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman, the
chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, for her tremendous leadership
on the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act and in moving this
important piece of legislation forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, for weeks, people across the
country have been protesting in the streets, demanding justice for
George Floyd, for Breonna Taylor, and for a countless number of people
killed by police.
Sadly, incidents like these are something that our communities of
color know too well. This moment--this moment--begs us to act, to be
bold, to capture this opportunity for change.
I commit and I urge all of my colleagues to be allies in this fight
and amplify our voices, recognizing that, once again, it is the women
of color who will take the lead in ensuring justice for all. Vote
``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the minority whip.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Ohio
for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.
I also want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Bass), for her work over the years on this issue as
well.
Mr. Speaker, we stand at a moment in time that is so important in our
country's history, a moment when we can actually come together to solve
a problem that we have seen that has gone on for a long time, something
that has come to light in different ways over years. But George Floyd's
death, a death that never should have happened, really did awaken and
create a moment in time when we can actually get something done on this
issue.
I hope that we rise to this moment. I hope that we work together to
address the problems that we have seen while making a careful and
important distinction not to undermine the important work that police
officers do every day, risking their lives to keep us safe.
That is really the thing that we have to focus the most on because we
know there are bad cops like there are bad people in any profession.
But to paint everybody with the same brush is not only unfair, it
actually does a disservice to the work that they do in every community
on a daily basis that is unheralded.
What I would first say is that while the bill that is before us today
is a bill that has some components that we support, but some components
that we feel would create even more problems, there can be work done to
come together. I know in committee there were many opportunities to
bring that forward, to bring other amendments forward, and it is a
shame that every single Republican amendment was shut down. Every
single amendment was shut down in committee. Every single amendment
that we brought forward was shut down on this House floor.
That is not going to solve this problem. I think we all know that. If
we are here to make law, which I think a lot of us are, then it is
going to mean both sides coming together to bring their best ideas
forward to address the problem.
I was very disappointed yesterday to watch on the Senate floor our
former House colleague and friend Tim Scott, who has worked on this for
a long time, somebody who has actually been a victim of racial
profiling himself who worked closely with a lot of people to bring a
bill to the floor that had a lot of bipartisan support. Yes, maybe some
people had differences with the bill, but instead of coming together
and working through those differences, the Democrats in the Senate
voted down the opportunity even to bring the bill on the floor.
The motion to proceed is the motion to start debate on the issue;
they voted it down. How is that going to solve the problem if you don't
even want to debate the problem? At least here on the House floor we
are having a debate.
I wish we had an open amendment process where we could try to settle
these differences here. That is not going to happen, unfortunately.
But, I, as my colleague Mr. Armstrong, don't give up hope, but we
present the opportunity to solve this problem.
If you look at the bill, H.R. 7278, the JUSTICE Act, by my friend Mr.
Stauber, who served as a police officer for over 20 years, he saw the
good and the bad in policing. He brings that unique perspective as
somebody who wants to solve the problem.
He will tell you that the person who doesn't want a bad cop more than
anybody is a good cop. You don't want to go on a call with a bad cop.
You want to root them out, while not undermining the important work
that law enforcement officers do every day.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen it firsthand. I would not be here today if
it wasn't for the bravery and heroism of law enforcement. I have seen
them risk their

[[Page H2482]]

lives for myself and for other people, maybe not knowing if they were
going to make it home that night, and they do that every day.
If there is a bad cop, let's root them out. But we want to make sure
we don't undermine the ability for the good cops that are all around
our communities, keeping us safe every day. They have a right not only
to keep us safe, but they have a right to make it back home to see
their families at the end of that night, too.
Let's make sure, when we are striking that important balance, we
don't forget about those two competing sides.
We can solve this problem. We need to work together to get this done.
Hopefully, we will do that before this moment is lost.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Peters), my good friend and classmate.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7120, the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Just to reflect on the comments from the gentleman, my colleague from
Louisiana, we all believe that cops are good people who became--most
cops are good people who became officers to serve their communities.
The provisions in today's bill will help us support the good cops by
rooting out the bad ones.
But, fundamentally, the culture of policing in this country must
change. There is a tremendous amount of support nationally, and I
believe in this body, for better training, transparency, and
accountability. It is devastating that we are acting too late to save
the lives of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor and Eric Garner and the
many other victims who haven't even made headlines.
But there is hope that this bill can save lives and protect Black
lives moving forward. We may not finish today, but this is an important
start.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this
legislation and vote ``yes.''

{time} 1800

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader and my good friend.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
thank the gentleman for his work and the work of his committee.
I thank Congresswoman Karen Bass--I served with her in the State
assembly--for the work as we go forward.
Today marks 1 month since George Floyd was tragically killed. As we
all agree, Mr. Floyd, Pat Underwood, and countless others should be
alive today.
Republicans have listened closely to calls for justice, and we have
responded proactively. Leading our response has been Senator Tim Scott
and Congressman Pete Stauber.
We could not ask for a better pair to work on this important issue: a
Black Senator who has personally experienced racial discrimination and
a retired law enforcement officer, wounded on the job, for more than 23
years with the State of Minnesota, who now serves in the House.
Their thoughtful efforts have produced something that is too rare in
this town: a bill that actually tries to solve a problem, not just
score political points.
It is truly a bipartisan plan, with over 80 percent of the policies
in the bill supported by Democrats. It builds on previous Republican-
led civil rights efforts, such as in the majority when we did criminal
justice reform, opportunity zones, and school choice. In fact, it could
be on its way to becoming law today in a more sensible environment. It
would pass on the merits with overwhelmingly bipartisan support.
But we don't live in sensible times. When I looked George Floyd's
brother in the eye and told him that George will not have died in vain,
I meant it.
To those on the other side of the aisle, I believe you meant it, too,
but there are questions that arise:
Did you work in good faith across the aisle or did you choose to go
it alone?
Did you choose to make a point rather than make a difference, all
while putting politics before people and slandering Republicans in the
process?
First, you dismissed the JUSTICE Act as ineffective before one single
word was read. I never once said that the Democrat bill was a
nonstarter, not once. I was asked at a press conference to name one
thing that I oppose. I went back to the reporter and said, no, I will
not, because this is a moment in time the country expects us to rise to
the occasion. I am not going to point to something that I disagree with
because I believe we can get to the point together.
I had hoped that on this floor we probably would be debating
amendments. Not one single amendment was allowed. Not one single
amendment was allowed.
I listened to the Democrats on the other side because they are in the
position the Republicans are here in the minority. They were offered 20
amendments, but they felt they shouldn't go forward--not to vote on the
bill, but not even to debate it. Would it be too much to offer the
minority one vote to do a bill together?
Then you tried to diminish its author. One Senate Democrat who is
White went so far as to say on the floor of the Senate that Senator
Scott, a Black Republican, was taking the token approach.
I don't know if you have ever served with Tim, but there is no one
who has higher character than the man I know.
I don't know what it is like to walk in other people's lives, but Tim
is a good friend. He has told me the stories. Tim did not start working
on this bill a month ago. He has been working on it his entire life,
like others, as well.
Tim did not ask to do the bill on the Senate side with no input from
the other side of the aisle. Tim offered amendments and others, but it
can't even move the bill forward.
Now you are defaming its supporters saying, as Speaker Pelosi
absurdly claims, that we are trying to get away with murder, the murder
of George Floyd. She knows she should have apologized, but she doubled
down on her remarks yesterday. That was a very sad state of affairs.
Think for one moment. The Speaker of the House is second in line to
the President of the United States. That job is too big for words so
small, especially in this moment and in this opportunity.
So much for meeting the moment and working together to solve a
problem. We have reached a new low in this body, and it is not one that
I want to be a part of.
Democrats in the Senate had the opportunity to add 20 amendments to
address their concerns about the JUSTICE Act, but they chose to walk
away. Meanwhile, Democrats in the House haven't given the Republicans
the opportunity to offer a single amendment on the floor.
I have been in the position of being a majority leader. I understand
you let a few make a decision, but I do not believe it is the will of
the other side of the aisle to shut out voices on this side. I do not
believe that you think you have all the answers or are afraid to even
have a debate when you know this is an issue that all of America on the
streets is rising up and wants to have a voice heard.
I don't understand why anybody is afraid to have amendments. We
didn't stop participating even though we had been shut out. We have
been to every hearing. We have been to every place. We want to make
law. We don't want to make politics. I think our country deserves more.
Worse yet, Democrats are now trying to distract from the party's
failures in governing major American cities. You are complicit in the
chaos and its consequences.
While you stall serious reform, your allies in the leftwing mob are
engaging in looting, destruction, and violence, attacking people,
property, and public monuments to American heroes.
The latest incident, I guarantee you, will not be the last. It was in
the city of Madison, Wisconsin, not a Republican stronghold, but a
Democrat, for decades. There, local officials stood by as a mob tore
down several statues that are publicly owned and entirely unoffensive.

The first statue they tore down was of Lady Forward, a symbol of
progress in the women's suffrage movement. Next, they tore down a
statue of Hans Christian Heg, an abolitionist who died fighting to end
slavery during the Civil War.
But it wasn't just statues they attacked that night. The mob also
assaulted a sitting State senator, a self-described supporter of the
protestors.

[[Page H2483]]

This lawless and unjustified violence must be stopped. But their own
Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor seemed too surprised by the attacks to do
anything about them. Their fatal mistake is to assume that Democrats
will be safe because, as the Lieutenant Governor said, they are on the
``proper'' side.
But here is the reality: Mobs don't care about your political
affiliation. Mobs won't draw any lines because they can't draw any
lines because they are mobs. They don't want peace, justice, or reform.
They want destruction, upheaval, and, most of all, control over you,
over others, and over our past, present, and future.
In this country, no one is above the law no matter how proper the
coastal elites or mainstream media deem their cause. As elected
officials, it is our responsibility to condemn these acts with passion,
force, and moral clarity.
It doesn't just happen in Wisconsin. It happens in California. It
happens in the Speaker's district.
Just a few short years ago, the Pope spoke from these Chambers. As he
left, the leadership stopped at Saint Serra and prayed together. There
was a statue in San Francisco that the mob tore down. I am not sure,
but I have not seen any comments from the individual who represents
that district.
In fact, their so-called solutions, such as dismantling and defunding
police would only make the problem worse, especially for our vulnerable
communities. By giving their leftwing allies a pass, the Democrats are
giving the mob more power, more license, and more ambition. That is a
recipe not for justice, but for more chaos.
Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln knew riots, mob rule, and defunding the
police present serious threats to the American way of life. As a young
man, he warned that ``lawlessness in spirit'' quickly becomes
``lawlessness in practice.'' He knew, if it was proper and you ignored
it, it would become a practice.
Today, we are witnessing the situation that Lincoln feared: a war on
civil society that is quickly escalating. We must summon the courage to
protect law-abiding citizens against lawlessness.
Our choice is clear: civil society or chaos. Those are our only
options.
Republicans know which side we stand on. We will stand up, hold the
line, and fight until the mob is stopped. Enough is enough.
Today, on this floor, 1 month ago, I thought we would show the
country that we are worthy of the office they let us serve in. We may
be of different parties. I am proud of mine. You see, I was not born
into the Republican Party. I came from a party of Democrats.
In my office, I keep portraits. I keep a portrait of Abraham Lincoln,
the first Republican President. I love what he stood for. I love what
he stood against. Malice towards none.
I wonder what this Nation would be had he not been assassinated?
Would we ever have had Jim Crow laws or the KKK? Would we even be
standing here today? But I think George Floyd would be, and so would
Pat Underwood.
In my office, in my chambers, I have Frederick Douglass as my newest
portrait, a man born into slavery, worked his way out. Even though he
had every reason to criticize this Nation, he loved it for its bruises,
its sores, and all because he believed in a more perfect Union, adviser
to a President and believing tomorrow would be better than today.
Inside my conference room, I keep a very big portrait of Washington
crossing the Delaware. If the mob was allowed in, they would probably
tear it down. You see, that portrait is painted not by an American, but
by an immigrant who lived here because America is more than a country.
America is an idea, an idea about liberty and freedom. And he thought
if he painted this painting, he would inspire others to believe in the
freedom that we stand for.
He gets it historically incorrect. He puts Washington in a rowboat
with 13 people, but he only shows you 12 faces. You look at Washington.
He is in his ceremonial uniform with his hand on his chest, bigger than
life. You think that man had never lost a battle, but history told us
he had not won one yet.
See, that was the night we surprised the Hessians with our first
victory. But if you look at the portrait and see who is in it, you look
at the second rower, it is a Black American. The one next to him is
Scottish. You come down, and the woman in the very back is a Native
American.
I do not know if they were in the boat that night, but to this young
immigrant, that is who he believed, having lived in America, would be
there.
To the back you see this man, a farmer, with his hand across his
face. The hand of the 13th person nobody sees. You see, to this young
artist, he said here we are not even a nation but an idea, an idea
based upon that we are all equal.
Having never won a battle, we are willing to risk everything, where
people would say on the holiest of nights, of Christmas: We will go to
a challenge in a rough water and cross that we have never won before.
Here is a hand. Would you get in and join us?
That is as true today as it was then. You see, in that portrait, they
didn't say only one party to join; they wanted all. They didn't say one
had all the ideas; they said we were collective. And they were willing
to do things they hadn't done before. They knew they were not perfect,
but they strived to become a more perfect Union.
I had hoped that that is what we would see today. Today, that will
not be the answer, but that can also not be the end. I would hope both
of us would rise up on both sides and ask us to go to conference.
Let's not miss this window of opportunity to show that we are worthy
of the cause we strive and the responsibility people give us. Let's not
call each other names of murderers and others. Let's believe in the
goodness of one another, and let's understand that we can solve this
problem once and for all.

{time} 1815

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, despite the representation that was just made, Speaker
Pelosi, as she always does, has risen to the occasion.
The question is, will you?
The Republican minority leader just said that we have put politics
over people. That is insulting, because it is our children, our sons,
our daughters, our brothers, our sisters, our fathers, our mothers, our
husbands, our wives who are the ones who are being killed.
This is not about politics. We know that racism has been in the soil
of America since 1619. We need transformational action.
The time to talk the talk is over. It is time to walk the walk. That
is why we are moving forward with the George Floyd Justice in Policing
Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from New York (Miss Rice), my good friend, a distinguished member of
the New York delegation, a former Federal prosecutor, and a district
attorney of one of the largest prosecutorial offices in the Nation.
Miss RICE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my
wholehearted support for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
As my good friend, Mr. Jeffries, just said, I spent the first 20
years of my career as a prosecutor in the criminal justice system. I
have seen where it works and, more often, I have seen where it doesn't
work.
I can say without a doubt that police accountability is one of the
areas that is fundamentally broken, but we need to do more than just
hold individual officers responsible. We need to address the
institutions that protect them and perpetuate systemic racism.
That is why I am proud to cosponsor this bill, which will make
critical changes to this broken system, like reforming the qualified
immunity standard, banning the use of chokeholds, creating a national
police misconduct registry, and modifying the mens rea standard to hold
officers accountable.
I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Congressional Black
Caucus and continue to listen to local Black leaders and activists back
in my district on Long Island as we continue to root out injustice and
discrimination from our society.
Black lives matter, Mr. Speaker, and it is about time our laws and
policies reflect that.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we just heard the Democratic Conference Chair say

[[Page H2484]]

Speaker Pelosi rose to the occasion. Calling Republican Senators
murderers is rising to the occasion?
We have had all kinds of new definitions today.
First, we hear from the committee chair of the Judiciary Committee
that antifa is imaginary, and now we heard from the Democratic
Conference Chair that the Speaker rose to the occasion when she uses
language like she did to describe Republican Senators.
And, oh, by the way, it wasn't just Republican Senators who voted for
Tim Scott's bill. There were two Democrat Senators who voted for it,
and an Independent. And somehow we get that language, the Speaker of
the House--as the Republican leader said, the individual second in line
to the President--rising to the occasion using language like that,
preceded by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the committee
focused on the rule of law, focused on the Constitution, saying an
organization the President of the United States has called terrorists
is imaginary? That is what we hear on the House floor?
I appreciate the Republican leader's remarks. I thought they were
right on target.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), a distinguished gentleman,
the chair of the Homeland Security Committee.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Jeffries) for yielding me the time.
As someone who has been both a victim of police insensitivity and
someone who has spent his entire life in an area known for police
mistreating people, and somebody who represents the area where Emmett
Till was killed and his accuser wore a badge, this notion that somehow
law enforcement's activities just started is not true.
But, you know, you have to walk in my shoes and the shoes of the
Congressional Black Caucus to know what we are talking about. I hope at
some point we can get there.
I am a grandfather. The story my father told me about law
enforcement, this day I am telling my grandson that same story 50 years
later. Law enforcement hasn't changed.
So what we have to do is if we are committed to it, we have to
support this bill.
The notion that the system is not broken? It is operating how it was
designed, so we are going to have to fix it, and we fix it by
supporting this bill.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 17 minutes
remaining.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos), the distinguished chair of
the DCCC, a classmate, and a great Member of Congress.
Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Jeffries for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the wife of the sheriff of Rock Island
County, Illinois. I also rise today in support of the Justice in
Policing Act.
I have listened to so many people throughout the district that I
serve who are hurting, so many stories of people who are in pain: a
woman whose cousin died when the police used a neck restraint like the
one that took George Floyd's life. That was in 2010, a decade ago. Her
family has been fighting for justice ever since.

I recognize that I as a White woman cannot fully understand the pain
that Black Americans feel, but I also know that if we are going to make
real and lasting change to end systemic racism, I must care just as
much and I must be just as motivated as those in the communities who
are hurting most.
Today, I lift their voices. America will hear you.
For this family's decade-long quest for justice, we can, we will, and
we must act.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Malinowski), a great new member of the
freshman class.
Mr. MALINOWSKI. Mr. Speaker, I will proudly vote for the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act because I believe that Black lives matter,
because I believe that nobody in America should have to fear an
encounter with police simply because of the color of their skin, and
because I believe that what we need right now above all is trust, trust
between law enforcement and the people, all the people they are sworn
to protect.
Trust is not built by police who use force as a first resort, it is
not built by police who look like they are the 82nd Airborne
parachuting into a war zone, it is not built by hiding problems so
abusive officers get assigned to train rookie cops or those fired for
misconduct can get rehired somewhere else.
Trust is built from better training, transparency, and the
accountability that every true public servant welcomes.
Now, this may not be a perfect bill, but it is surely the start of a
process that will make us better. So, please, let's get this process
started.
If we also want to fund the police, if we want to support the good
cops who are out there, then please ask the Senate to support the
HEROES Act alongside police reform, the whole point of which was to
help our State and local governments keep our first responders on the
job.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, the lynching of George Floyd
shocked our Nation, not because he was the first Black man murdered by
police, but because he is one of countless Black men unjustifiably
murdered, and with video. It was indisputable.
After centuries of inequality, prejudice, and discrimination, the
American people are crying out for justice.
Today, we are taking action.
The Justice in Policing Act curbs the excessive force and lack of
transparency that has contributed to police brutality; chokeholds and
no-knock warrants for drug cases would be banned; deadly force would be
restricted, as would military equipment meant for battlefields, not
American streets; and body cameras would be mandatory. Crucially, it
also limits qualified immunity, which protects police from
accountability.
But reform is not enough. We must also change the culture of
policing, which this bill does through funding for States and
communities to conduct badly needed de-escalation training.
George Floyd was not the first Black man killed by police, but with
this legislation, he can hopefully be among the last.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Soto).
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Speaker, in my hometown of Kissimmee, Florida, I joined
our local protest of the murder of George Floyd. We came together,
members of the NAACP, Black Lives Matter, our Sheriff Russ Gibson,
local police chiefs, and a multitude of my fellow Puerto Rican brothers
and sisters. We decried hate, condemned police brutality, and stood
unified for change.
I then led a conversation on justice and equality in America with
Black civil rights leaders, law enforcement, and local officials from
across central Florida. I listened intently, and their voices were
clear: Black lives matter, and support the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act of 2020.
We see you; we hear you, and we will honor those we lost with action.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan).
Mrs. TRAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Jeffries for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we have long encountered excuses as to why we can't
tackle bias, discrimination, and racism in America, excuses that have
prevented equality in healthcare, in the classroom, housing, in the
workplace, and, yes, in the way police interact with communities they
have sworn to protect.

[[Page H2485]]

That approach has led to a deadly reality where Black lives are equal
on paper, but not in real life.
We know this because the data show it. The data show that Black
Americans are more likely to die during a trip to the hospital and more
likely to be killed, while unarmed, by the police.
We know this because George Floyd should be alive today; so should
Breonna Taylor, Tamir Rice, Eric Garner, and so many others.
The Justice in Policing Act would have prevented their deaths, and it
is long overdue. We owe it to them and to every Black American to make
this bill law. Then we must get to work fixing the injustice that has
persisted in our country for centuries so that we can create a more
inclusive, truly equal, and just America for everyone to call home.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), my good friend.

{time} 1830

Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank our conference chair.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act in honor of the lives I took an oath to serve as long as I
draw breath.
Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Dominique ``Rem'mie'' Fells, Sandra
Bland, Saheed Vassell, Eric Garner, Sean Bell, Patrick Dorismond--how
many more Black lives must be hashtagged before we deliver equal
justice to all of our people?
I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle make every
excuse under the Sun for maintaining the status quo. Not today, my
friends.
When Americans are dying at disproportionate rates across the country
at the hands of law enforcement and have been doing so for generations,
enough is enough, and Congress must act. This crucial legislation will
make police accountable for their actions.
1976, Randolph Evans, 15 years old, unarmed Black boy, shot dead,
Brooklyn, New York.
1978, Arthur Miller, choked to death, Brooklyn, New York--my first
protest as a child. The only crime: Being Black.
Here we are 2020, Breonna Taylor, shot dead in her home; George
Floyd, choked to death. Their only crime: Being Black.
So, my colleagues, as the only Black woman in the New York State
congressional delegation, there are two things I know are true and will
remain true whether we acknowledge or accept it: Black lives matter.
No justice, no peace. Today, I choose justice. I vote ``yes.''
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from the great State of Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, our country continues to fail Black people.
Seven-year-old Aiyana Stanley-Jones, in my district, would have
graduated from high school this year if she was not murdered by police
when they raided her home, the wrong home.
Yes, who killed George Floyd should be the focus, but also what
killed George Floyd. We are talking about centuries of dehumanizing
Black folks in our country, and it must end now.
We cannot stop here. We are, again, failing our neighbors when it
comes to public safety, education, poverty, structural racism, which is
deadly, and it is up to us to tear it down.
It is not enough for us to just say Black lives matter. We, in this
Chamber, have the power for real policy change and implementation that
truly frees our Black neighbors.
Aiyana, George, Breonna, Malice Green, we failed you, but your
murders may be the way not to continue the injustice that we see in our
country, and we have to stop it now.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from the great State of Colorado (Mr. Crow), an
Army Ranger, a patriot, and a great Member of the United States House
of Representatives.
Mr. CROW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Elijah McClain, a
young Black man from Aurora, Colorado, who died in police custody. He
was 23 years old.
Before coming to the floor today, I asked Elijah's mother what she
wanted to tell the world about her son, and here are her words:
``Elijah spread joy everywhere he went. He was a lover of all beings.
He dedicated his energy to healing others through his work as a massage
therapist and playing his violin at the animal shelter to keep them
from being lonely. Elijah's name will live on in the hearts of all who
knew him.''
Colorado was blessed by Elijah's legacy, and last week, we passed the
most transformative police bill in the country.
Tonight, it is Congress' turn to do the same. I urge my colleagues to
join me and pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. The time for
talk in Congress is over. My vote tonight will be cast for Elijah
McClain.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Castro), the
chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, for far too long, far too many
people have lost their lives to police brutality. And for far too long,
the government has failed to protect the people. That changes today.
This is a first, yet significant step to save lives, especially Black
lives.
In my hometown of San Antonio, police violence has existed for
generations. In just the last few years, Marquise Jones was killed by
an off-duty officer during a routine fender-bender.
Antronie Scott was killed by an officer who thought a cell phone was
a gun.
Charles Roundtree was killed by police. He was only 18 years old.
The Latino community has also suffered from police brutality. Andres
Guardado and Carlos Lopez are the latest to be killed.
Forty years ago, in San Antonio, Hector Santoscoy was killed by a
police officer who had also killed a Black man, Bobby Jo Phillips, in
1968.
The cases we see on video are only a fraction of the misconduct and
abuse that occurs every day, leaving long-lasting physical, mental, and
sociological damage. The good, lifesaving work of police is undercut by
the blue code of secrecy, officers who refuse to tell on each other,
police unions that never admit when they are wrong, and politicians who
have been afraid to take on police unions.
This Congress must have the courage to act now and pass this
legislation.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi).
Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
In 2019, USA Today published the largest public database of
disciplinary records for police officers. They found that fewer than 10
percent of officers in most police forces had been investigated. But of
those who are investigated, most have 10 or more misconduct charges,
and worse, some face more than 100 allegations. Almost all still have
their badges today.
To address this issue, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act
includes a national registry to bring transparency to disciplinary
decisions, to bring transparency to police misconduct, and to bring
transparency to the high cost of irresponsible individuals to
taxpayers.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is about transparency and
sunlight. We need that now more than ever.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining on our
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining.

[[Page H2486]]

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from the great State of Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand for the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act, an important step for racial justice. I
hope our approval will soften the hearts in the Senate because there is
much to do.
I am honored to work with another champion for justice, Congresswoman
Barbara Lee, whose Marijuana Justice Act would be the next step,
repealing Nixon's blatantly racist prohibition of marijuana with its
selective enforcement against young Black men, which continues to
ensnare tens of thousands of young Black men every month for something
that Americans think should be legal.
Let's approve the MORE Act, already passed out of the Judiciary
Committee, the next critical step in racial justice reform and
protecting young Black men from oppression.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from the great State of Maryland (Mr. Mfume), the former head
of the NAACP as well as the Congressional Black Caucus.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New
York, the chair of our Caucus, for yielding.
I listened intently to the litany that the minority leader chose to
deliver, and I watched and looked through a lens of history about his
admonitions about our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln, and they were
all well-stated.
I think the bottom line, though, is that, in any debate, there ought
to be real context. So there are other things that Lincoln said that
are relevant to this debate as well.
In 1848, in a speech delivered in Edwardsville, Illinois, he spoke
these words to his countrymen. He said:

When you have succeeded in dehumanizing the Negro; when you
have put him down and made it impossible for him to be but as
the beasts of the field; when you have extinguished his soul
in this world and placed him where the ray of hope is blown
out as in the darkness of the damned, are you quite sure that
the demon you have roused will not turn and rend you?

Lincoln went on to say:

Destroy the Negro's spirit and you have planted the seeds
of despotism at your own doorstep.

He said:

Ignore the chains of bondage, and you prepare your own
limbs to wear them.

Finally, he said:

Accustomed to trample on the rights and the freedoms of
others, and you would have lost the creative genius of your
own independence, and then become the fit subjects of the
first cunning tyrant who rises among you.

So while I appreciate the minority leader's comments, I think it is
important that we have context in this debate. We have driven here and
have been driven here by the actions of people all across this country
who want justice, who want an end to police violence, who want an end
to rogue cops and want to be able to live, work, and breathe in a
society like anyone else.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have no
additional speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It seems to me four principles should frame our work in putting
together policies that help the country.
First and foremost, we need to recognize, as we all do, the tragedy
that took place in Minneapolis. The taking of George Floyd's life was
just that, a tragedy. It never should have happened. As I have said
before, it is as wrong as wrong can be, and his family deserves
justice, as do others.
The Republican leader mentioned Pat Underwood. His death was as wrong
as wrong can be, and his family deserves justice as well.
Second, we should condemn violence and also the creation of any type
of autonomous zone that is separate from our great country.
I said this earlier today. There is a big difference between peaceful
protest and some of the things we have seen. Peaceful protest, that is
First Amendment. We have all engaged in it. That is apple pie. That is
America.
But peaceful protest is different than the rioting we have seen.
Peaceful protest is different than the looting we have seen. Peaceful
protest is different than the violence we have witnessed, the attacking
of people, the taking of people's businesses and destroying them.
Peaceful protest is different than CHAZ and CHOP and these autonomous
zones that are forming.
Third, the vast majority--vast, vast majority--of police officers are
good, good people doing great work, risking their lives every time they
put the uniform on and serve their shift, do their duty.
They are the guys who protect us here on Capitol Hill. They are the
folks who rushed into the Twin Towers on 9/11. They are the guys and
gals back home, men and women back home, who protect our communities,
and we should remember that.
Fourth, defunding the police is crazy, one of the most crazy ideas I
have ever heard.
You have the mayor of New York, as I said earlier today, the mayor of
New York is going to cut the police a billion dollars. You have the
mayor of LA, our second largest city, going to cut the police $150
million. You have a supermajority on the city council of Minneapolis
that wants to abolish the police and so many other major cities where
they are talking about the same thing.
This Congress started off with Democrats saying abolish ICE. Then it
moved to, no, let's get rid of the whole Department of Homeland
Security. Now, we have Democrats in big cities around our country
saying defund the police, get rid of police departments. It makes no
sense.
Those four principles seem to me should be common sense and should
form the framework for us to work together and form policy. But
unfortunately, the Democrats didn't want to work together. We saw it
yesterday in the Senate. We saw it last week in the House, in the
committee. We are seeing it today on the floor.
Twelve amendments offered last week, none accepted. No amendments
allowed on the floor today. Yesterday, we weren't even allowed to
debate it, couldn't even move to debate in the United States Senate.
But as I said, the only bipartisanship we have seen on this issue in
the last several weeks on Capitol Hill was yesterday in the Senate when
two Democrats and one Independent, tripartisanship, voted to move
forward on Senator Scott's legislation.
So let's hope, on this issue, this important issue and others, that
we can begin to work together for the good of the American people, for
the good of this great country--I would say the greatest Nation ever,
not perfect, greatest Nation ever though.
When you live in the greatest Nation ever, I think the people of this
great country want us to work together to find the solutions that make
sense, that make good common sense, and fit within those principles I
talked about.
That is what I hoped we could do. Over the last few weeks,
unfortunately, that is not the course the majority has taken.
I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me begin by thanking the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus
and the prime sponsor of this legislation, Karen Bass, for her
extraordinary leadership on such a critical issue during such a
critical moment in time.
I also want to thank the distinguished chair of the House Judiciary
Committee, Congressman Jerry Nadler, for his tremendous leadership in
ushering this bill through committee and to the floor of the House of
Representatives.

{time} 1845

I want to thank Speaker Pelosi and the entire House Democratic Caucus
for rising to the occasion at this particular moment in time.
I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for
participating in the debate and sharing their ideas, though I will note
that many of my Republican colleagues spent this debate talking about
antifa, talking about the autonomous zone, and talking about abolishing
the police, which appears

[[Page H2487]]

nowhere within the four corners of this legislation.
They know what this bill is really all about. It criminalizes the
chokehold, because it is about George Floyd, who was strangled to death
with a knee to his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds while handcuffed.
It is about being handcuffed while Black, about George Floyd.
They know this bill, its really about Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old who
was gunned down while playing in a Cleveland park. It is about Tamir
Rice because the bill will establish a registry for brutal officers so
that jurisdictions will have some visibility into whom they are hiring.
The officer who murdered Tamir Rice, this 12-year-old boy, had been
fired by a neighboring department for brutal behavior, and then he was
hired by the Cleveland Police Department with tragic consequences
because they had no visibility into his record. This bill is about
Tamir Rice.
They know this bill is about Breonna Taylor, sleeping while Black,
gunned down because of a no-knock warrant in a drug case that was
falsely executed in Louisville. Now a husband has lost his wife. It is
about Breonna Taylor. They know that.
This is about countless individuals in this great country of ours
killed by police officers without justification.
Yes, we know that the majority of police officers--certainly the ones
I interact with at home in Brooklyn--are hardworking individuals who
are in the community to protect and serve. But there are violent
officers, there are brutal officers, and there are abusive officers;
and far too often they are not held accountable because of a toxic
culture that exists and that cannot be denied--not month after month,
not year after year, but decade after decade after decade.
We know the names. Many of those names were called today from the
floor of the House of Representatives, but the names are too numerous
to mention. That is why we are here, to do something transformative
about it.
I am thankful for all of those peaceful protesters who have gone out
all throughout the four corners of America, yes, led by young African-
American women--I love that--and young African-American men, but joined
by every other race, Black, White, Latino, Asian, Native American,
multiracial, multigenerational, and multicultural, coming together and
saying, ``Enough.''
We need to deal with systemic racism in America, and we can start
with the cancer of police brutality. That is what the George Floyd
Justice in Policing bill is all about. It is not about antifa or some
autonomous zone or defunding the police, which they know doesn't appear
in this bill.
I don't want to question anybody's good faith, but let's have a real
debate. You are entitled to your own opinion; you are not entitled to
your own facts. Those words ring true to this very day from the moment
that President John Adams uttered them.
So I am thankful to the House Democratic Caucus for rising to the
occasion. We collectively have said to the protesters of every race
throughout America: We hear you, we see you, and we are you.
Many of you know that the death of George Floyd was not called to my
attention by a fellow Member of Congress, by my chief of staff, or by
my legislative director. It was called to my attention by my young son,
who said: Dad, it has happened again. What are you going to do about
it?
Those words, of course, ran through my heart. But I say to him, and I
say to all of those other Black children throughout America: We are
here today as House Democrats to do something about it.
Pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Americans have been protesting ever since the nation witnessed the
murder of George Floyd at the hands of law enforcement last month.
Today, the House of Representatives is taking action to address
problems in our broken policing and criminal justice systems by passing
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
The bill has many important provisions--
It bans chokeholds, ends no-knock warrants in drug cases and
prohibits racial profiling.
It creates national standards for policing policies, such as
training, body cameras and use of deadly force.
It provides for data collection.
It removes barriers that make it difficult to hold police officers
accountable for misconduct.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this bill as
quickly as possible, and to begin the next step in the process:
investing in our communities.
Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7120, the
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
For far too long, equal justice and protection under the law have
been deferred dreams for Black people and communities of color across
our country. As we consider this bill, people throughout Metro Atlanta
and throughout my home state of Georgia are gripped by pain and anguish
over the deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Rayshard Brooks, Breonna Taylor,
George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, Sandra Bland, Philando Castile, Tamir
Rice, Jordan Davis, who was the beloved son of our colleague
Congresswoman Lucy McBath, and countless others. The pain in the depths
of our souls is constant and all consuming. It is the seemingly endless
nightmare from which we cannot awake.
Today, young people are taking up the mantle in a movement that I
know all too well. All over the world, communities are once again
joining the call for racial equity and equality. While their feet march
towards justice, their pain, their frustration, and petitions cannot--
must not--be ignored. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act provides
us with an opportunity to practice what we preach. While we use our
speech to advance American ideals such as freedom, liberty, and justice
for all, we must use our hands to implement these values. H.R. 7120
puts us on the right path.
Many may seek to mischaracterize this legislation. Some will ignore
the opportunities that this bill presents to improve our communities.
For example, I greatly appreciate that the authors included my
proposal, the Law Enforcement Inclusion Act, which permits Federal
grant funds to be used to recruit and train officers from the
neighborhoods they are charged to protect and serve. H.R. 7120 also
provides law enforcement with the help and training they need to
address mental health, drug use, and other complex societal issues.
These proposals are partial solutions to the historic disconnect and
distrust between communities of color and law enforcement.
Others may argue that the bill does not go far enough. This
legislation addresses one Federal part of a complicated puzzle of
entrenched, systematic bias and inequality, and we cannot let the
perfect be the enemy of the good. Going forward, we must demilitarize
law enforcement and establish empathy in our justice system. Make no
mistake--much more is needed from cities, counties, State, and Federal
authorities in every corner of our country. Our work is cut out for us,
and our mandate, from those whom we were elected to represent and
serve, is clear.
Mr. Speaker, a democracy cannot thrive where power remains unchecked
and justice is reserved for a select few. Ignoring these cries and
failing to respond to this movement is simply not an option. For peace
cannot exist where justice is not served. I urge each and everyone of
our colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of
Representatives to join me as I rise to support the George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act.
Police brutality in our communities of color has been a national
pandemic for decades. My colleagues and I can recall quite easily an
incident or incidents of police brutality that involve ourselves or our
loved ones. We understand what it feels like to be afraid of the very
men and women who are supposed to protect you. We understand that we
are considered dangerous based on the color of our skin.
Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't
seem to understand that. They have shown that our law enforcement
officials, like our President, are above the law.
That's not right. I am proud to vote for a bill that will go a long
way towards healing the rift between our law enforcement agencies and
the minority neighborhoods they serve. It will end racial profiling in
police conduct. It will ban the use of chokeholds, basically the 21st
century's version of lynching. It will eliminate ``no-knock'' warrants
in law enforcement, which means police officers must respect the rights
of every homeowner and renter regardless of race. It will establish
independent prosecutors in cases of excessive force. In addition, it
will establish a national standard of conduct for police officers
nationwide. This national standard will make it easier to train law
enforcement officials across the country to support equal protections
under the law for all American citizens.

[[Page H2488]]

People of all colors, cultures and creeds have taken to streets
across the country to demand action in this cause. They want it
established in federal law that black lives matter and the time of
killing our men and women of color is over. As our citizens tear down
the statutes of racists and bigots across the country, we need to
follow suit and tear down the policies that allow racism to exist in
our law enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I know my fellow members of the U.S. House of
Representatives agree that the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act
deserves to be recognized at this time because it represents a
milestone in the American commitment to justice and equality for every
citizen. All lives will matter when Black lives matter.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the thousands of peaceful protests
and demonstrations that took place in the streets across our country
these past few weeks are a product of years of delay in action on the
issue of police brutality. Today, we take a meaningful first step
towards a solution by passing H.R. 7120, the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act of 2020, with my full support.
It is my hope that this moment in our history will be looked upon as
a time when we as a nation came together, regardless of party or
politics, in support of sweeping, transformative change--and I believe
that this bill is the answer. Among its bold initiatives include
banning chokeholds that took the life of George Floyd and no-knock
warrants that resulted in the murder of Breonna Taylor; ending court-
created doctrines of qualified immunity; and improving oversight
regulations to hold law enforcement accountable for misconduct. The
Justice in Policing Act is both a reflection upon and remedy for the
structural and institutional bias against Black Americans in our
society.
It has always been my belief that there must be a relationship
between the police and the community they swear to protect--one built
on mutual respect, trust, and communication. That is why I was proud to
see provisions included in this bill that support community-based
safety programs and establish public safety innovation grants for local
commissions and task forces to reassess current approaches. Empowering
our communities to reimagine public safety in an equitable and just
manner is a crucial step to bring about change in the culture of law
enforcement.
It is important to note that legislation alone cannot right the
wrongs of the past, nor will it assure unconditionally the very
liberties guaranteed within its text. Rather, it is in the hearts and
minds of Americans in every community that real, purposeful change is
initiated. To those who called my offices, wrote letters, or attended
protests over the past weeks to demand that Congress take action, know
that my vote today lends influence to your voices.
I'd like to thank Speaker Pelosi, Whip Clyburn, and all Members of
House Leadership, Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, as well as
Chairs of the Congressional Black Caucus and the House Judiciary
Committee Representatives Bass and Nadler for the timely and thorough
manner in which this bill will be passed.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7120 and ask that the
Senate begin debate without delay.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7120--George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020. This legislation has been a long
time coming and for many it has arrive too little too late. Our nation
is a work in progress, and we will continue to fight for equality under
the law in every and all aspects. As we recently celebrate Juneteenth,
I am reminded of what my ancestors have endured, and I know that they
would be proud of the progress we are making today. I know I am.
This essential legislation has critical provision including
supporting the need for more deescalation training for police officers,
something that I have long fought for and which has proven time and
time again to work. The bill will also block the transfer of weapons of
war to police departments, end the no-knock warrants that led to the
murder of Breonna Taylor, ban choke holds that killed Eric Garner and
George Floyd, and finally end qualified immunity which has shielded
police officers from receiving justice for killing or injuring members
of the community.
As a member of the Congressional Black Caucus but more importantly as
a black mother, grandmother, and now great grandmother, I am so proud
to be an original sponsor of the legislation.
Our communities are demanding action, calling for strong and
effective action that will help not only prevent future tragedies
between police and the communities they patrol, but also help increase
trust and build safer communities.
This is a commonsense bill that deserves bipartisan support. This is
the first step to making our union more perfect and I urge all my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the JUSTICE Act is designed to
ensure greater transparency and accountability in policing in order to
build safer communities.
I cosponsored the JUSTICE Act because it is a serious, comprehensive
and balanced reform initiative--an important step forward.
I am deeply grateful to Senator Tim Scott and Congressman Pete
Stauber for authoring this bicameral legislation.
The killing of George Floyd while in custody by a Minneapolis police
officer demands justice and has resulted in a fresh and necessary look
at crime and policing.
I watched the video of Derek Chauvin kneeling on the neck of Mr.
Floyd who pleaded ``I can't breathe'' with horror and disbelief.
Chauvin not only betrayed his solemn duty to serve and protect but he
betrayed, as well, police officers throughout the nation who serve with
great honor and valor, and make enormous sacrifices to protect the
innocent and enforce the law.
Today I--like many Americans--believe that nonviolent dialogue and
persuasion are not only the best way, but it is the only way to achieve
meaningful change.
Those who commit violent acts against police and others, as well as
those who destroy property and steal, should be prosecuted to the
greatest extent of the law.
The JUSTICE Act that we will vote on today includes new funding of
$225 million for improved police training--including best practices for
violence deescalation and alternatives to the use of force--which will
likely reduce injury or death to both police officers and criminal
suspects. The training also includes the most effective approaches to
suspects with mental health conditions and developmental disability
including individuals with autism.
The JUSTICE Act also authorizes a $500 million matching grant program
to help police departments purchase body-worn cameras and receive the
necessary training to ensure optimal use. It conditions eligibility for
this funding on certain criteria, including usage at all times when an
officer arrests or detains anyone.
The evidence for bodycam use is compelling. Studies have shown that
the use of body-worn cameras can reduce complaints against officers by
up to 90 percent and decrease officers' use of force by 60 percent.
The JUSTICE ACT also provides $500 million for duty-to-intervene
training and directs the Attorney General in consultation with state
and local governments, and organizations representing rank and file law
enforcement officers to develop training curricula on the duty of a law
enforcement officer to intervene when another officer engages in
excessive use of force.
Had any one of the three officers on the scene in Minneapolis
intervened when George Floyd pleaded that he couldn't breathe, his life
could have been saved.
Other reforms embedded in the legislation include maintaining and
appropriately sharing disciplinary records for officer hiring, use of
force reporting to the FBI, no-knock warrant reporting, incentivizing
chokehold bans and increased penalties for false police reports.
The JUSTICE Act empowers the Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) grant program to hire recruiters and enroll candidates in law
enforcement academies to ensure racial and demographic representation
similar to the communities served, and funds an education program for
law enforcement on racism produced by the Smithsonian's National Museum
of African American History.
The bill makes lynching a federal crime.
The legislation also creates the Commission on the Social Status of
Black Men and Boys which will study and issue a wide-ranging report on
conditions affecting Black men and boys, including homicide rates,
arrest and incarceration rates, poverty, violence, fatherhood,
mentorship, drug abuse, death rates, disparate income and wealth
levels, school performance in all grade levels and health issues and
will make recommendations to address these issues.
That said, why not vote for the Democrat bill that is before the
House today as well?
I have serious concerns that the language in H.R. 7120--the Democrat
proposal--eviscerates qualified immunity in civil lawsuits for our
women and men in law enforcement.
Let's be clear, current policy provides no immunity whatsoever--nor
should it ever--from criminal prosecution as in the case of the officer
responsible for the death of George Floyd.
But qualified immunity--a judicially created legal doctrine--shields
government officials, including law enforcement, from personal
liability lawsuits so long as their actions do not violate ``clearly
established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable
person would have known.''
According to the Congressional Research Service, ``The Supreme Court
has observed that qualified immunity balances two important interests--
the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power
irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment,
distraction and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.''

[[Page H2489]]

Section 102 of the Democrat bill ends qualified immunity and states
in pertinent part that ``It shall not be a defense or immunity in any
action brought under this section against a local law enforcement
officer . . . `` even if ``. . . 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. . . .;'
If Section 102 became law, it would likely result in a flood of legal
actions--an engraved invitation to sue law enforcement officers.
Moreover, it will deter police from using force where the use of
force is necessary to save life or protect property--diminishing the
ability of police to provide public safety in dangerous situations.
Finally, a June 15 letter from the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE
ORGANIZATIONS--which represents one thousand professional police
associations and units and 241,000 officers throughout the United
States--wrote: ``Our most significant concerns include amending Section
242 of Title 18 United States Code to lower the standard for mens rea
(Title I Subtitle A, Section 101) and the practical elimination of
qualified immunity for law enforcement officers (Section 102).
Combined, these two provisions take away any legal protections for
officers while making it easier to prosecute them for mistakes on the
job, not just criminal acts. With the change to qualified immunity, an
officer can go to prison for an unintentional act that unknowingly
broke an unknown law. We believe in holding officers accountable for
their actions, but the consequence of this would be making criminals
out of decent cops enforcing the laws in good faith.''
I include the entire letter in the Record:

National Association of

Police Organizations, Inc.

Alexandria, VA, June 15, 2020.
Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
Chair, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jim Jordan,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Jordan: I am
writing to you today on behalf of the National Association of
Police Organizations (NAPO), representing over 241,000 sworn
law enforcement officers from across the country, to advise
you of our opposition to the Justice in Policing Act, H.R.
7120, as currently written.
NAPO is a coalition of police unions and associations from
across the nation, which was organized for the purpose of
advancing the interests of America's law enforcement officers
through legislative advocacy, political action and education.
Unequivocally, what happened to George Floyd was egregious.
There is no legal justification, self-defense justification,
or moral justification for the actions of the officer. We, as
rank-and-file officers, support improving policing practices.
While we do have significant concerns with several provisions
of the Justice in Policing Act, we believe there are areas
that we can come together on to address the need for greater
transparency, accountability, and training in law
enforcement. However, until our concerns are addressed, we
cannot support this legislation.
Our most significant concerns include amending Section 242
of Title 18 United States Code to lower the standard for mens
rea (Title I Subtitle A, Section 101) and the practical
elimination of qualified immunity for law enforcement
officers (Section 102). Combined, these two provisions take
away any legal protections for officers while making it
easier to prosecute them for mistakes on the job, not just
criminal acts. With the change to qualified immunity, an
officer can go to prison for an unintentional act that
unknowingly broke an unknown law. We believe in holding
officers accountable for their actions, but the consequence
of this would be making criminals out of decent cops
enforcing the laws in good faith.
Another provision of serious concern is the change proposed
to the current legal standard of ``objective reasonableness''
for the use of force outlined in the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court
decision Graham v. Connor (Sec. 364). The Supreme Court has
repeatedly said that the most important factor to consider in
applying force is the threat faced by the officer or others
at the scene. The use of force has to be reasonable given
what the officer perceived to be the threat at the time, not
with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Law enforcement officers
across the nation take an oath that they will run towards
danger when everyone else is running away--and they do so to
protect our families and communities. Subjectively changing
the legal standard for holding officers accountable for their
actions will have a chilling effect on the men and women in
uniform. It undermines their ability to respond in an
immediate and decisive manner, and thus creates a hesitation
that would threaten the safety of our families, communities
and officers.
No cop wants to work with a bad cop--it makes the job more
dangerous and difficult. We support ensuring officers who
have substantiated serious allegations of misconduct that
have been officially and fairly adjudicated can no longer
practice law enforcement, but we must ensure officers have
due process before they are decertified. Unfortunately, one
of the underlying assumptions of the Justice in Policing Act
is that law enforcement officers should not get the right to
due process, a right we give all citizens, a right all unions
work to protect for their members in disciplinary actions.
We support creating national standards for training on de-
escalation and communication techniques to help officers to
stabilize situations and reduce the immediate threat so that
more time, options, and resources can be used to resolve the
situation without the use of force. Such training will go
much further in achieving the goals of this legislation to
reduce the use of lethal force than the lessening of legal
protections for officers. We also believe that rank-and-file
officers, as practitioners, or their representatives, must
play a role in developing national training standards.
Training standards on the use of force and de-escalation
would also reduce the use of ``chokeholds'' or carotid artery
restraints, which are already banned by law enforcement
agencies across the country as a means of less-than lethal
force for their officers. However, ``chokeholds'' are a vital
tool for officers to have when use of deadly force is
justified. If the subject poses an immediate threat to the
safety of the officer or others and a ``chokehold'' is the
officer's best or only option, it is vital that she is able
to use it. We strongly recommend against criminalizing these
maneuvers outright and we oppose making them a civil rights
violation (Sec. 362(c)). We advise prohibiting ``chokeholds''
unless deadly force is authorized.
Data collection on the use of force is key to improving
integrity and transparency in policing. It is important that
the data collected on the use of force reflects the entirety
of the situation: use of force by officers and use of force
against officers, and not just force using firearms. The
Federal Bureau of Investigation began collecting such data in
their Use of Force Database in 2019, which they established
in collaboration with state and local law enforcement.
Data collection, training, and certification all cost a
significant amount of money, yet the Justice in Policing Act
does not provide additional funding to help states and
localities comply with the many mandates of the bill. In
fact, in order to ensure compliance, it penalizes states and
law enforcement agencies by taking away all or part of the
Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) and the Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant funding. The
consequence of this on all sectors of the criminal justice
system will be long lasting. At a time when it is well known
that state and local governments are facing serious budget
and revenue holes due to the coronavirus pandemic and
officers are facing furloughs and layoffs, this legislation
assumes that somehow governments will have the funding to
comply with the requirements of the bill. To incentivize
compliance with any police reform policies, funding must be
provided, and it is imperative that all sides have had their
voices heard. This is where the Justice in Policing Act falls
the shortest.
I have highlighted a few of the areas where we have strong
opposition and others where we agree on the intention and
goal. There are additional areas of the Justice in Policing
Act not covered in this letter with which we have concerns
and those whose objectives we support. We urge you to
consider our concerns and the perspective of the officers on
the street and give us a seat at the table as this
legislation moves forward. Until that consideration is
granted, we oppose the Justice in Policing Act.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns and we hope to
work collaboratively with you to improve policing practices
in America. Please feel free to contact me if you would like
to discuss our concerns further.
Sincerely,
William J. Johnson, Esq.,
Executive Director.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 7120, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
I thank my colleague from Los Angeles, the Chairwoman of the
Congressional Black Caucus, Karen Bass, for her tireless work and
leadership on this bill.
The murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor were a devastating
tragedy. My heart breaks for their families and all the families who
have lost loved ones as a result of abuse of power at the hands of law
enforcement.
We expect members of law enforcement to protect us and help keep our
communities safe. When we lose people like George and Breoanna in
senseless and bizarre acts of violence, that trust understandably
disappears.
Rightfully horrified and angered against displays of police
brutality, Americans across the country, of all racial and ethnic
backgrounds, are marching in the streets to declare the fundamental
truth that Black Lives Matter, and to demand justice for all the lives
lost at the hands of police brutality.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is a bold bill that will
help address racial injustice and police brutality, head on, for all
Americans.
Also important is that it will help rebuild the trust between the
majority of good, decent law enforcement officers and the communities
they have sworn to protect and to serve.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act will help to save lives.

[[Page H2490]]

It will ban chokeholds, like the one used to murder George Floyd as
he cried out for his mother.
It bans no-knock warrants, like the one used by Louisville police
officers which resulted in the shooting death of Breonna Taylor while
she was sleeping in her home.
This bill will bring transparency to law enforcement practices by
mandating the use of body cameras and holding officers who abuse their
power accountable.
Furthermore, this bill ends qualified immunity, a legal protection
that makes it nearly impossible for victims of police brutality to hold
their abusers liable.
This bill also reduces the ability of corrupt police officers to work
in new jurisdictions by creating a national database on police
misconduct.
In response to the militarization of our police force, this bill will
also stop the transfer of military weapons to law enforcement agencies
in our communities. Weapons of war have no place on our streets.
And finally, H.R. 7120 closes the law enforcement consent loophole,
making it a crime for law enforcement to engage in any sexual activity
with individuals in their custody.
This bill is not the end-all solution. It will not end the root
causes of systemic racism and police brutality. Nor will it address the
systems of oppression that have affected communities of color for
centuries.
Creating an equal, just, and inclusive America is critical work we
all still have ahead of us.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is a positive step in the
right direction. And it is firm declaration by Congress that Black
lives matter.
I look forward to working with Representative Bass and my colleagues
to continue to combat racial injustice throughout our nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this vital bill.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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. 7120, the George Floyd Justice In
Policing Act of 2020, which marks a defining turning point in our
country.
By the millions, Americans have taken 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.
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 have seen 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.'
It direct response, for the past several weeks civil protests against
police brutality have occurred nightly in cities large and small all
across the nation.
These protests are 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 being witnessed nightly in the streets of
America are 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; Stephan
Clark in Sacramento, California; Eric Garner and Sean Bell in New York
City; Sandra Bland in Waller County, Texas; Jordan Baker in Houston,
Texas; 12-year old Tamir Rice in Cleveland; and Michael Brown in
Ferguson, Missouri, also, Pamela Turner, Sandra Bland, and Danny Ray
Thomas.
They remember as well the senseless killings of Ahmaud Arbery and
Trayvon Martin by self-appointed vigilantes, Robbie Tolan, shot by
police at his own home and he lived but was seriously injured.
And the continuing need for their activism is reflected in the most
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.
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.
7120, 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 2020 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 2020, 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 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 2020, which contains numerous provisions to weed out
and eliminate systemic racism in police practices.
Specifically, this legislation holds police accountable in our courts
by:
1. Amending the mens rea requirement in federal law (18 U.S.C.
Section 242) to prosecute police misconduct from ``willfulness'' to a
``recklessness'' standard;
2. Reforming qualified immunity so that individuals are not barred
from recovering damages when police violate their constitutional
rights;
3. 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;
4. Incentivizing states to create independent investigative
structures for police involved deaths; and
5. Creating best practices recommendations based on the Obama 21st
Century Policing Task force.
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 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

[[Page H2491]]

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 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, 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 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-years
of 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 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1017, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. STAUBER. I am in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Stauber moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 7120, to the
Committee on Judiciary with instructions to report the same
back to the House forthwith, with the following amendment:
Strike section 2 and all that follows, and insert the
following (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

TITLE I--LAW ENFORCEMENT REFORMS

SEC. 101. GEORGE FLOYD AND WALTER SCOTT NOTIFICATION ACT.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``George
Floyd and Walter Scott Notification Act''.
(b) National Use-of-Force Data Collection.--Section 501 of
title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (34 U.S.C. 10152) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(h) National Use-of-Force Data Collection.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this section--
``(A) the term `law enforcement officer'--
``(i) means any officer, agent, or employee of a State,
unit of local government, or an Indian tribe authorized by
law or by a government agency to engage in or supervise the
prevention detection, or investigation of any violation of
criminal law, or authorized by law to supervise sentenced
criminal offenders; and
``(ii) includes an individual described in clause (i) who
is employed or volunteers in a full-time, part-time, or
auxiliary capacity;
``(B) the term `National Use-of-Force Data Collection'
means the National Use-of-Force Data Collection of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation; and
``(C) the term `serious bodily injury' means bodily injury
that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness,
extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement,
or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily
member, organ, or mental faculty.
``(2) Reporting requirement.--For each fiscal year in which
a State or unit of local government receives funds under
subsection (a), the State or unit of local government shall
report to the National Use-of-Force Data Collection on an
annual basis and pursuant to guidelines established by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, information regarding--
``(A) a use-of-force event by a law enforcement officer in
the State or unit of local government that involves--
``(i) the fatality of an individual that is connected to
use of force by a law enforcement officer;
``(ii) the serious bodily injury of an individual that is
connected to use of force by a law enforcement officer; and
``(iii) in the absence of either death or serious bodily
injury, when a firearm is discharged by a law enforcement
officer at or in the direction of an individual;
``(B) any event in which a firearm is discharged by a
civilian at or in the direction of a law enforcement officer;
and
``(C) the death or serious bodily injury of a law
enforcement officer that results from any discharge of a
firearm by a civilian, or any other means, including whether
the law enforcement officer was killed or suffered serious
bodily injury as part of an ambush or calculated attack.
``(3) Information required.--For each use-of-force event
required to be reported under paragraph (2), the following
information shall be provided, as required by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation:
``(A) Incident information.
``(B) Subject information.
``(C) Officer information.
``(4) Compliance.--
``(A) Ineligibility for funds.--
``(i) First fiscal year.--

``(I) States.--For the first fiscal year beginning after
the date of enactment of the George Floyd and Walter Scott
Notification Act in which a State fails to comply with
paragraph (2) with respect to a State law enforcement agency,
the State shall be subject to a 20-percent reduction of the
funds that would otherwise be allocated for retention by the
State under section 505(c) for that fiscal year, and if any
unit of local government within the State fails to comply
with paragraph (2), the State shall be subject to a reduction
of the funds allocated for retention by the State under
section 505(c) that is equal to the percentage of the
population of the State represented by the unit of local
government, not to exceed 20 percent.
``(II) Local governments.--For the first fiscal year
beginning after the date of enactment of the George Floyd and
Walter Scott Notification Act in which a unit of local
government fails to comply with paragraph (2), the unit of
local government shall be subject to a 20-percent reduction
of the funds that would otherwise be allocated to the unit of
local government for that fiscal year under this subpart.

``(ii) Subsequent fiscal years.--

``(I) States.--Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning
after the first fiscal year described in clause (i)(I) in
which a State fails to comply with paragraph (2) with respect
to a State law enforcement agency, the percentage by which
the funds described in clause (i)(I) are reduced shall be
increased by 5 percent each fiscal year the State fails to
comply with paragraph (2), except that such reduction shall
not exceed 25 percent in any fiscal year.
``(II) Local governments.--Beginning in the first fiscal
year beginning after the first fiscal year described in
clause (i)(II) in which a unit of local government fails to
comply with paragraph (2), the percentage by which the funds
described in clause (i)(II) are reduced shall be increased by
5 percent each fiscal year the unit of local government fails
to comply with paragraph (2), except that such reduction
shall not exceed 25 percent in any fiscal year.

``(B) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated under a program
referred to in subparagraph (A) to a State or unit of local
government for failure to comply with paragraph (2) shall be
reallocated under the program to States or units of local
government that have complied with paragraph (2).
``(5) Public availability of data.--Not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act, and each year
thereafter, the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation shall publish, and make available to the
public, the National Use-of-Force Data Collection.
``(6) FBI outreach and technical assistance.--The Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall provide to a
State or unit of local government technical assistance and
training for the collection and submission of data in
accordance with this subsection.''.

SEC. 102. BREONNA TAYLOR NOTIFICATION ACT.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Breonna Taylor Notification Act of 2020''.

[[Page H2492]]

(b) No-knock Warrant Reports.--Section 501 of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34
U.S.C. 10152), as amended by section 101 of this Act, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) No-knock Warrant Reports.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) 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.
``(B) No-knock warrant.--The term `no-knock warrant' means
a warrant that authorizes a law enforcement officer to enter
a certain premises to execute a warrant without first
knocking or otherwise announcing the presence of the law
enforcement officer if a court of competent jurisdiction
finds reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing the
presence of law enforcement would--
``(i) pose a danger to the officer, a suspect, or a third
party on the premises;
``(ii) inhibit the investigation; or
``(iii) allow the destruction of evidence.
``(C) State law enforcement agency; local law enforcement
agency.--The terms `State law enforcement agency' and `local
law enforcement agency' mean an agency of a State or unit of
local government, respectively, that is authorized to engage
in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or
prosecution of any violation of criminal law.
``(2) Report to attorney general.--
``(A) Requirement.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (iii), not later than
January 31 of the first calendar year beginning after the
date of enactment of the Breonna Taylor Notification Act of
2020, and annually thereafter--

``(I) a State that receives funds under subsection (a)
shall submit to the Attorney General a report that includes,
for each no-knock warrant carried out by a State law
enforcement agency of the State during the preceding calendar
year, the information described in subclauses (I) through (V)
of paragraph (3)(A)(i); and
``(II) a unit of local government that receives funds under
subsection (a) shall submit to the Attorney General a report
that includes--

``(aa) for each no-knock warrant carried out by a local law
enforcement agency of the unit of local government during the
preceding calendar year, the information described in
subclauses (I) through (V) of paragraph (3)(A)(i); and
``(bb) the crime rate data for the unit of local government
for the preceding calendar year.
``(ii) State oversight of local governments.--A State that
receives funds under subsection (a) shall ensure that each
unit of local government within the State submits to the
Attorney General a report that includes, in accordance with
clause (i)(II) of this subparagraph--

``(I) for each no-knock warrant carried out by a local law
enforcement agency of the unit of local government during the
preceding calendar year, the information described in
subclauses (I) through (V) of paragraph (3)(A)(i); and
``(II) the crime rate data for the unit of local government
for the preceding calendar year.

``(iii) Open investigations.--A State or unit of local
government--

``(I) may not submit the information described in
subclauses (I) through (V) of paragraph (3)(A)(i) for a no-
knock warrant relating to an investigation that has not been
closed as of the date on which the applicable report is due
under clause (i) of this subparagraph; and
``(II) shall include any information withheld under
subclause (I) in the earliest subsequent report submitted
under clause (i) after the investigation has been closed.

``(B) Penalty.--
``(i) In general.--

``(I) First fiscal year.--

``(aa) States.--
``(AA) Failure to comply by state.--For the first fiscal
year that follows a fiscal year in which a State failed to
comply with subparagraph (A) with respect to a State law
enforcement agency, the State shall be subject to a 20-
percent reduction of the funds that would otherwise be
allocated for retention by the State under section 505(c) for
that fiscal year.
``(BB) Failure to comply by local government.--For the
first fiscal year that follows a fiscal year in which a unit
of local government within a State failed to comply with
subparagraph (A), the State shall be subject to a reduction
of the funds that would otherwise be allocated for retention
by the State under section 505(c) for that fiscal year by a
percentage that is equal to the percentage of the population
of the State that lives in the unit of local government,
which may not exceed 20 percent.
``(bb) Units of local government.--For the first fiscal
year that follows a fiscal year in which a unit of local
government failed to comply with subparagraph (A), the unit
of local government shall be subject to a 20-percent
reduction of the funds that would otherwise be allocated to
the unit of local government under this subpart for that
fiscal year.

``(II) Subsequent fiscal years.--

``(aa) States.--Beginning in the first fiscal year
beginning after the first fiscal year described in subclause
(I)(aa)(AA) in which a State fails to comply with
subparagraph (A) with respect to a State law enforcement
agency, the percentage by which the funds described in
subclause (I)(aa)(AA) are reduced shall be increased by 5
percent each fiscal year the State fails to comply with
subparagraph (A) with respect to a State law enforcement
agency, except that such reduction shall not exceed 25
percent in any fiscal year.
``(bb) Local governments.--Beginning in the first fiscal
year beginning after the first fiscal year described in
subclause (I)(bb) in which a unit of local government fails
to comply with subparagraph (A), the percentage by which the
funds described in subclause (I)(bb) are reduced shall be
increased by 5 percent each fiscal year the unit of local
government fails to comply with subparagraph (A), except that
such reduction shall not exceed 25 percent in any fiscal
year.
``(ii) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated by reason of
clause (i) to a State or unit of local government for failure
to comply with subparagraph (A) shall be reallocated to
States or units of local government, respectively, that have
complied with subparagraph (A).
``(iii) Effective date.--Clause (i) shall take effect with
respect to the third annual report due under subparagraph (A)
after the date of enactment of the Breonna Taylor
Notification Act of 2020.
``(3) Attorney general report.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), not later
than March 31 of the first calendar year beginning after the
date of enactment of the Breonna Taylor Notification Act of
2020, and annually thereafter, the Attorney General shall
publish a report that includes--
``(i) for each no-knock warrant carried out by a Federal
law enforcement agency, State law enforcement agency, or
local law enforcement agency during the preceding calendar
year--

``(I) the reason for which the warrant was issued,
including each violation of law listed on the warrant;
``(II) whether, in the course of carrying out the warrant--

``(aa) force resulting in property damage, serious bodily
injury, or death was used; or
``(bb) any law enforcement officer, suspect, or bystander
was injured or killed;

``(III) the sex, race, ethnicity, and age of each person
found at the location for which the no-knock warrant was
issued;
``(IV) whether the location searched matched the location
described in the warrant;
``(V) whether the warrant included the particularized
information required under the Fourth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the
Supreme Court of the United States, and any other applicable
Federal, State, or local law related to the use of no-knock
warrants; and

``(ii) for each local law enforcement agency for which
information is submitted under clause (i) for a calendar
year, the crime rate data for the applicable unit of local
government for that calendar year.
``(B) Open investigations.--The Attorney General--
``(i) may not publish any information described in
subparagraph (A) for a no-knock warrant relating to an
investigation that has not been closed as of the date on
which the applicable report is due under that paragraph; and
``(ii) shall include any information withheld under clause
(i) in the earliest subsequent report published under
subparagraph (A) after the investigation has been closed.''.

SEC. 103. GUIDANCE.

(a) In General.--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 and
State and local law enforcement agencies, shall issue
guidance on best practices relating to establishing standard
data collection systems that capture the information required
to be reported under subsections (h) and (i) of section 501
of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10152), as added by sections 101 and 102
of this Act, respectively, and that ensure the reporting
under such subsections (h) and (i) is consistent with data
reported under the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013 (34
U.S.C. 60105 et seq.), section 20104(a)(2) of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C.
12104(a)(2)), which shall include standard and consistent
definitions for terms, including the term ``use of force''.
(b) Privacy Protections.--Nothing in section 101 or 102
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. 104. COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

(a) In General.--The Attorney General may award grants to
States and units of local government to assist in the
collection of the information required to be reported under
subsections (h) and (i) of section 501 of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C.
10152), as added by sections 101 and 102 of this Act,
respectively.
(b) Application.--A State or unit of local government
seeking a grant under this section shall submit an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Attorney General may require.

[[Page H2493]]

(c) Amount of Grant.--Each grant awarded under this section
shall be not more than $1,000,000.
(d) Direct Appropriations.--For the purpose of making
grants under this section, there is authorized to be
appropriated, and there is appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2020, $112,000,000, to remain available
until expended.

SEC. 105. INCENTIVIZING BANNING OF CHOKEHOLDS.

(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) chokeholds are extremely dangerous maneuvers that can
easily result in serious bodily injury or death;
(2) George Floyd's death has become a flashpoint to compel
the need to address the use of chokeholds by law enforcement
officers across the United States;
(3) the National Consensus Policy on Use of Force, a
collaborative effort among 11 of the most significant law
enforcement leadership and labor organizations in the United
States, concluded in a discussion paper on the use of force
that chokeholds are extremely dangerous and recommended
restricting their use, consistent with this section; and
(4) law enforcement agencies throughout the United States
must create policies that guard against the use of this
maneuver to help prevent the death of civilians whom they
encounter, and engender more trust and faith among law
enforcement officers and the communities they serve.
(b) Incentivizing Banning of Chokeholds.--
(1) COPS grant program eligibility.--Section 1701 of title
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
(34 U.S.C. 10381), as amended by section 601 of this Act, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(o) Banning of Chokeholds.--
``(1) Chokehold defined.--In this subsection, the term
`chokehold' means a physical maneuver that restricts an
individual's ability to breathe for the purposes of
incapacitation.
``(2) Limitation on eligibility for funds.--Beginning in
the first fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment
of the JUSTICE Act, a State or unit of local government may
not receive funds under this section 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 an agency-wide policy
in place for each law enforcement agency of the State or unit
of local government that prohibits the use of chokeholds
except when deadly force is authorized.''.
(2) Byrne grant program eligibility.--Section 501 of title
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
(34 U.S.C. 10152), as amended by section 102 of this Act, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Banning of Chokeholds.--
``(1) Chokehold defined.--In this subsection, the term
`chokehold' means a physical maneuver that restricts an
individual's ability to breathe for the purposes of
incapacitation.
``(2) Limitation on eligibility for funds.--Beginning in
the first fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment
of the JUSTICE Act, a State or unit of local government may
not receive funds under this part 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 an agency-wide policy
in place for each law enforcement agency of the State or unit
of local government that prohibits the use of chokeholds
except when deadly force is authorized.''.
(c) Federal Law Enforcement Agencies.--
(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``chokehold''
means a physical maneuver that restricts an individual's
ability to breathe for the purposes of incapacitation.
(2) Federal policy.--The Attorney General shall develop a
policy for Federal law enforcement agencies that bans the use
of chokeholds except when deadly force is authorized.
(3) Requirement.--The head of each Federal law enforcement
agency shall implement the policy developed under paragraph
(2).

SEC. 106. FALSIFYING POLICE INCIDENT REPORTS.

(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) when a law enforcement officer commits an offense that
deprives a citizen of their rights, privileges, and
immunities protected under the Constitution and laws of the
United States, that behavior is penalized to punish those
involved and to deter future conduct;
(2) where serious bodily injury or death results from the
acts described in paragraph (1), punishment must be severe;
(3) a law enforcement officer who intentionally submits a
false police report in connection with an act described in
paragraph (1) should also be punished severely;
(4) false reporting described in paragraph (3) not only
serves to conceal potential criminal conduct and obstruct the
administration of justice, false reporting also undermines
the trust and confidence that communities place in law
enforcement agencies;
(5) obstruction of justice is intolerable in any form,
particularly in the form described in this subsection;
(6) the deterioration of trust and confidence between law
enforcement agencies and communities must be abated; and
(7) severe penalties must be imposed for individuals who
create false police reports in connection with criminal civil
rights violations resulting in serious bodily injury or
death.
(b) Offense.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 1041. FALSE REPORTING.

``(a) Offense.--It shall be unlawful for any person to
knowingly and willfully falsify a police report in a material
way with the intent to falsify, conceal, or cover up a
material fact, in furtherance of the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States where death or
serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) occurs.
``(b) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (a)
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than
20 years, or both.''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1040
the following:

``1041. False reporting.''.
(d) Sentencing Enhancement for Falsification of Police
Reports.--Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of
title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing
Commission shall review and amend the Federal sentencing
guidelines to ensure that the guidelines provide an
additional penalty increase of not fewer than 4 offense
levels if the defendant knowingly and willfully falsifies a
report in a material way with the intent to falsify, conceal,
or cover up a material fact, in furtherance of the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured
or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States
where death or serious bodily injury occurs.

TITLE II--BODY-WORN CAMERAS

SEC. 201. BODY-WORN CAMERA PARTNERSHIP GRANT PROGRAM.

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.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 509. BODY-WORN CAMERA PARTNERSHIP GRANT PROGRAM.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `covered government' means a State, unit of
local government, or Indian Tribe;
``(2) the term `Director' means the Director of the Bureau
of Justice Assistance; and
``(3) the term `unit of local government', notwithstanding
section 901, does not include an Indian Tribe.
``(b) Authorization of Grants.--The Director may make
grants to eligible covered governments for use by the covered
government for--
``(1) the purchase of body-worn cameras;
``(2) necessary initial supportive technological
infrastructure for body-worn cameras for law enforcement
officers in the jurisdiction of the grantee;
``(3) the development of policies and procedures relating
to the use of body-worn cameras;
``(4) training on the use of body-worn cameras;
``(5) the storage, retention, viewing, auditing, and
release of footage from body-worn cameras; and
``(6) personnel, including law enforcement, prosecution,
and criminal defense personnel, to support the administration
of the body-worn camera program of the covered government.
``(c) Eligibility.--
``(1) Application.--For a covered government to be eligible
to receive a grant under this section, the chief executive
officer of the covered government shall submit to the
Director an application in such form and containing such
information as the Director may require.
``(2) Policies and procedures assurances.--The application
under paragraph (1) shall, as required by the Director,
provide assurances that the covered government will establish
policies and procedures in accordance with subsection (d).
``(d) Required Policies and Procedures.--
``(1) In general.--A covered government receiving a grant
under this section shall develop policies and procedures
related to the use of body-worn cameras that--
``(A) are developed with community input, including from
prosecutors and organizations representing crime victims, in
accordance with recognized best practices;
``(B) require that a body-worn camera be activated when a
law enforcement officer arrests or detains any person in the
course of the official duties of the officer, with
consideration to sensitive cases;
``(C) apply discipline to any law enforcement officer who
intentionally fails to ensure that a body-worn camera is
engaged, functional, and properly secured at all times during
which the camera is required to be worn;
``(D) require training for--
``(i) the proper use of body-worn cameras; and
``(ii) the handling and use of the obtained video and audio
recordings;
``(E) provide clear standards for privacy, data retention,
and use for evidentiary purposes in a criminal proceeding,
including in

[[Page H2494]]

the case of an assault on a law enforcement officer; and
``(F) make footage available to the public in response to a
valid request under an applicable freedom of information law
if the footage can be made available--
``(i) without compromising an ongoing investigation or
revealing the identity of third parties, including victims,
informants, or witnesses; and
``(ii) with consideration given to the rights of victims
and surviving family members.
``(2) Publication.--A covered government receiving a grant
under this section shall make all policies and procedures
regarding body-worn cameras available on a public website.
``(3) Guidance.--The Director shall issue guidance to
covered governments related to the requirements under
paragraph (1).
``(e) Grant Amounts.--
``(1) Minimum amount.--
``(A) In general.--Each fiscal year, unless the Director
has awarded a fully funded grant for each eligible
application submitted by a State and any units of local
government within the State under this section for the fiscal
year, the Director shall allocate to the State and units of
local government within the State for grants under this
section an aggregate amount that is not less than 0.5 percent
of the total amount appropriated for the fiscal year for
grants under this section.
``(B) Certain territories.--For purposes of the Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana
Islands, subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting
`0.25 percent' for `0.5 percent'.
``(2) Maximum amount.--
``(A) Amount per covered government.--A covered government
may not receive a grant under this section for a fiscal year
in an amount that is greater than 5 percent of the total
amount appropriated for grants under this section for the
fiscal year.
``(B) Aggregate amount per state.--A State and each covered
government within the State may not receive grants under this
section for a fiscal year in an aggregate amount that is more
than 20 percent of the total amount appropriated for grants
under this section for the fiscal year.
``(f) Matching Funds.--The portion of the costs of a body-
worn camera program provided by a grant under this section--
``(1) may not exceed 50 percent; and
``(2) subject to subsection (e)(2), shall equal 50 percent
if the grant is to a unit of local government with fewer than
100,000 residents.
``(g) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Funds made available under
this section shall not be used to supplant covered government
funds, but shall be used to increase the amount of funds that
would, in the absence of Federal funds, be made available
from covered government sources for the purposes of this
section.
``(h) Reports to the Director.--A covered government that
receives a grant under this section shall submit to the
Director, for each year in which funds from a grant received
under this section are expended, a report at such time and in
such manner as the Director may reasonably require, that
contains--
``(1) a summary of the activities carried out under the
grant and an assessment of whether the activities are meeting
the needs identified in the grant application; and
``(2) such other information as the Director may require.
``(i) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after
the end of a fiscal year for which grants are made under this
section, the Director shall submit to Congress a report that
includes--
``(1) the aggregate amount of grants made under this
section to each covered government for the fiscal year;
``(2) a summary of the information provided by covered
governments receiving grants under this section; and
``(3) a description of the priorities and plan for awarding
grants among eligible covered governments, and how the plan
will ensure the effective use of body-worn cameras to protect
public safety.
``(j) Direct Appropriations.--For the purpose of making
grants under this section there is authorized to be
appropriated, and there is appropriated, out of amounts in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2020, $500,000,000, to remain available
until expended.''.

SEC. 202. PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO USE BODY-WORN CAMERAS.

(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``covered
provision'' means--
(1) section 509 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968, as added by section 201; and
(2) any other provision of law that makes funds available
for the purchase of body-worn cameras.
(b) Requirement.--
(1) States.--A State that receives funds under a covered
provision shall--
(A) have a policy in place to apply discipline to any law
enforcement officer who intentionally fails to ensure that a
body-worn camera purchased using those funds is engaged,
functional, and properly secured at all times during which
the camera is required to be worn; and
(B) ensure that any entity to which the State awards a
subgrant under the covered provision has a policy in place to
apply discipline to any law enforcement officer who
intentionally fails to ensure that a body-worn camera
purchased using those funds is engaged, functional, and
properly secured at all times during which the camera is
required to be worn.
(2) Other entities.--An entity other than a State that
receives funds under a covered provision shall have a policy
in place to apply discipline to any law enforcement officer
who intentionally fails to ensure that a body-worn camera
purchased using those funds is engaged, functional, and
properly secured at all times during which the camera is
required to be worn.
(c) Compliance.--
(1) Ineligibility for funds.--
(A) First fiscal year.--
(i) States.--For the first fiscal year beginning after the
date of enactment of this Act in which a State fails to
comply with subsection (b)(1), the State shall be subject to
a 20-percent reduction of the funds that would otherwise be
provided to the State under the applicable covered provision
for that fiscal year.
(ii) Other entities.--For the first fiscal year beginning
after the date of enactment of this Act in which an entity
other than a State fails to comply with subsection (b)(2),
the entity shall be subject to a 20-percent reduction of the
funds that would otherwise be allocated to the entity under
the applicable covered provision for that fiscal year.
(B) Subsequent fiscal years.--
(i) States.--Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning
after the first fiscal year described in subparagraph (A)(i)
in which a State fails to comply with subsection (b), the
percentage by which the funds described in subparagraph
(A)(i) are reduced shall be increased by 5 percent each
fiscal year the State fails to comply with subsection (b),
except that such reduction shall not exceed 25 percent in any
fiscal year.
(ii) Other entities.--Beginning in the first fiscal year
beginning after the first fiscal year described in
subparagraph (A)(i) in which a an entity other than a State
fails to comply with subsection (b), the percentage by which
the funds described in subparagraph (A)(ii) are reduced shall
be increased by 5 percent each fiscal year the entity fails
to comply with subsection (b), except that such reduction
shall not exceed 25 percent in any fiscal year.
(2) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated under covered
provision to a State or other entity for failure to comply
with subsection (b) shall be reallocated under the covered
provision to States or other entities that have complied with
subsection (b).

TITLE III--LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS RETENTION

SEC. 301. LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS RETENTION.

(a) In General.-- Part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Acts of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Subpart 4--Law Enforcement Records Retention

``SEC. 531. LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS RETENTION.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `applicable covered system', with respect to
a law enforcement agency, means the covered system of the
covered government of which the law enforcement agency is
part;
``(2) the term `covered government' means a State or unit
of local government;
``(3) the term `covered system' means a system maintained
by a covered government under subsection (b); and
``(4) the term `disciplinary record'--
``(A) means any written document regarding an allegation of
misconduct by a law enforcement officer that--
``(i) is substantiated and is adjudicated by a government
agency or court; and
``(ii) results in--

``(I) adverse action by the employing law enforcement
agency; or
``(II) criminal charges; and

``(B) does not include a written document regarding an
allegation described in subparagraph (A) if the adjudication
described in clause (i) of that subparagraph has been
overturned on appeal.
``(b) Records Retention Requirements.--
``(1) Records retention system.--A covered government that
receives funds under this part shall maintain a system for
sharing disciplinary records of law enforcement officers that
meets the requirements under paragraph (2).
``(2) Requirements.--In administering a covered system, a
covered government shall--
``(A) retain each disciplinary record or internal
investigation record regarding a law enforcement officer that
is prepared by a law enforcement agency of the covered
government;
``(B) retain a record of each award or commendation
regarding a law enforcement officer that is prepared by a law
enforcement agency of the covered government;
``(C) establish a policy that ensures that each record
included in the covered system is retained and accessible for
not less than 30 years;
``(D) allow a law enforcement officer, counsel for a law
enforcement officer, or the representative organization of a
law enforcement officer to--
``(i) submit information to the covered system relating to
a disciplinary record or internal investigation record
regarding the law enforcement officer that is retained under
subparagraph (A); or
``(ii) obtain access to the covered system in order to
review a disciplinary record or internal investigation record
described in clause (i);

[[Page H2495]]

``(E) allow any Federal, State, or local law enforcement
agency to access any record included in the covered system
for the purpose of making a decision to hire a law
enforcement officer;
``(F) require that, before hiring a law enforcement
officer, a representative of a law enforcement agency of the
covered government with hiring authority--
``(i) search the applicable covered system of each law
enforcement agency that has employed the applicant as a law
enforcement officer in order to determine whether the
applicant has a disciplinary record, internal investigation
record, or record of an award or commendation on file; and
``(ii) if a record described in clause (i) exists, review
the record in full before hiring the law enforcement officer;
and
``(G) prohibit access to the covered system by any
individual other than an individual who is authorized to
access the covered system for purposes of--
``(i) submitting records or other information to the
covered system as described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and
(D); or
``(ii) reviewing records or other information in the
covered system as described in subparagraphs (E) and (F).
``(c) Ineligibility for Funds.--
``(1) In general.-- A covered government may not receive
funds under section 505, 506, 515, or 516 unless the covered
government is in compliance with subsection (b) of this
section.
``(2) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated under a section
referred to in paragraph (1) to a covered government for
failure to comply with subsection (b) shall be reallocated
under that section to covered governments that have complied
with subsection (b).
``(d) One-time Grant.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall award a grant
to each State, using an apportionment formula that reflects
the differences between each State, to be used by the State
and units of local government within the State to establish
covered systems.
``(2) Amount.--The amount of a grant awarded to a State
under paragraph (1) shall be not less than $1,000,000.
``(3) Direct appropriations.--For the purpose of making
grants under this subsection, there is authorized to be
appropriated, and there is appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $100,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
``(e) Indemnification.--
``(1) In general.--The United States shall indemnify and
hold harmless a covered government, and any law enforcement
agency thereof, against any claim (including reasonable
expenses of litigation or settlement) by any person or entity
related to--
``(A) the retention of records in a covered system as
required under subsection (b); or
``(B) the review of records included in a covered system as
required under subsection (b).
``(2) Limitation.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the
release of a record--
``(A) to a non-law enforcement entity or individual; or
``(B) for a purpose other than making a decision to hire a
law enforcement officer.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 531(c) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Acts of 1968, as added
by subsection (a), shall take effect on October 1 of the
first fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of
this Act.

TITLE IV--JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF LYNCHING

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Justice for Victims of
Lynching Act of 2020''.

SEC. 402. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The crime of lynching succeeded slavery as the ultimate
expression of racism in the United States following
Reconstruction.
(2) Lynching was a widely acknowledged practice in the
United States until the middle of the 20th century.
(3) Lynching was a crime that occurred throughout the
United States, with documented incidents in all but 4 States.
(4) At least 4,742 people, predominantly African Americans,
were reported lynched in the United States between 1882 and
1968.
(5) Ninety-nine percent of all perpetrators of lynching
escaped from punishment by State or local officials.
(6) Lynching prompted African Americans to form the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(referred to in this section as the ``NAACP'') and prompted
members of B'nai B'rith to found the Anti-Defamation League.
(7) Mr. Walter White, as a member of the NAACP and later as
the executive secretary of the NAACP from 1931 to 1955,
meticulously investigated lynchings in the United States and
worked tirelessly to end segregation and racialized terror.
(8) Nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in
Congress during the first half of the 20th century.
(9) Between 1890 and 1952, 7 Presidents petitioned Congress
to end lynching.
(10) Between 1920 and 1940, the House of Representatives
passed 3 strong anti-lynching measures.
(11) Protection against lynching was the minimum and most
basic of Federal responsibilities, and the Senate considered
but failed to enact anti-lynching legislation despite
repeated requests by civil rights groups, Presidents, and the
House of Representatives to do so.
(12) The publication of ``Without Sanctuary: Lynching
Photography in America'' helped bring greater awareness and
proper recognition of the victims of lynching.
(13) Only by coming to terms with history can the United
States effectively champion human rights abroad.
(14) An apology offered in the spirit of true repentance
moves the United States toward reconciliation and may become
central to a new understanding, on which improved racial
relations can be forged.
(15) Having concluded that a reckoning with our own history
is the only way the country can effectively champion human
rights abroad, 90 Members of the United States Senate agreed
to Senate Resolution 39, 109th Congress, on June 13, 2005, to
apologize to the victims of lynching and the descendants of
those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-
lynching legislation.
(16) The National Memorial for Peace and Justice, which
opened to the public in Montgomery, Alabama, on April 26,
2018, is the Nation's first memorial dedicated to the legacy
of enslaved Black people, people terrorized by lynching,
African Americans humiliated by racial segregation and Jim
Crow, and people of color burdened with contemporary
presumptions of guilt and police violence.
(17) Notwithstanding the Senate's apology and the
heightened awareness and education about the Nation's legacy
with lynching, it is wholly necessary and appropriate for the
Congress to enact legislation, after 100 years of
unsuccessful legislative efforts, finally to make lynching a
Federal crime.
(18) Further, it is the sense of Congress that criminal
action by a group increases the likelihood that the criminal
object of that group will be successfully attained and
decreases the probability that the individuals involved will
depart from their path of criminality. Therefore, it is
appropriate to specify criminal penalties for the crime of
lynching, or any attempt or conspiracy to commit lynching.
(19) The United States Senate agreed to unanimously Senate
Resolution 118, 115th Congress, on April 5, 2017,
``[c]ondemning hate crime and any other form of racism,
religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to
violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United
States'' and taking notice specifically of Federal Bureau of
Investigation statistics demonstrating that ``among single-
bias hate crime incidents in the United States, 59.2 percent
of victims were targeted due to racial, ethnic, or ancestral
bias, and among those victims, 52.2 percent were victims of
crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Black or anti-African
American bias''.
(20) On September 14, 2017, President Donald J. Trump
signed into law Senate Joint Resolution 49 (Public Law 115-
58; 131 Stat. 1149), wherein Congress ``condemn[ed] the
racist violence and domestic terrorist attack that took place
between August 11 and August 12, 2017, in Charlottesville,
Virginia'' and ``urg[ed] the President and his administration
to speak out against hate groups that espouse racism,
extremism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and White supremacy;
and use all resources available to the President and the
President's Cabinet to address the growing prevalence of
those hate groups in the United States''.
(21) Senate Joint Resolution 49 (Public Law 115-58; 131
Stat. 1149) specifically took notice of ``hundreds of torch-
bearing White nationalists, White supremacists, Klansmen, and
neo-Nazis [who] chanted racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-
immigrant slogans and violently engaged with counter-
demonstrators on and around the grounds of the University of
Virginia in Charlottesville'' and that these groups
``reportedly are organizing similar events in other cities in
the United States and communities everywhere are concerned
about the growing and open display of hate and violence being
perpetrated by those groups''.
(22) Lynching was a pernicious and pervasive tool that was
used to interfere with multiple aspects of life--including
the exercise of Federally protected rights, as enumerated in
section 245 of title 18, United States Code, housing rights,
as enumerated in section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 3631), and the free exercise of religion, as
enumerated in section 247 of title 18, United States Code.
Interference with these rights was often effectuated by
multiple offenders and groups, rather than isolated
individuals. Therefore, prohibiting conspiracies to violate
each of these rights recognizes the history of lynching in
the United States and serves to prohibit its use in the
future.

SEC. 403. LYNCHING.

(a) Offense.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 250. Lynching

``Whoever conspires with another person to violate section
245, 247, or 249 of this title or section 901 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3631) shall be punished in the
same manner as a completed violation of such section, except
that if the maximum term of imprisonment for such completed
violation is less than 10 years, the person may be imprisoned
for not more than 10 years.''.
(b) Table of Sections Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 13 of title 18,

[[Page H2496]]

United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 249 the following:

``250. Lynching.''.

TITLE V--COMMISSION ON THE SOCIAL STATUS OF BLACK MEN AND BOYS ACT

SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Commission on the Social
Status of Black Men and Boys Act''.

SEC. 502. COMMISSION ESTABLISHMENT AND MEMBERSHIP.

(a) Establishment.--The Commission on the Social Status of
Black Men and Boys (hereinafter in this title referred to as
``the Commission'') is established within the United States
Commission on Civil Rights Office of the Staff Director.
(b) Membership.--The Commission shall consist of 19 members
appointed as follows:
(1) The Senate majority leader shall appoint one member who
is not employed by the Federal Government and is an expert on
issues affecting Black men and boys in America.
(2) The Senate minority leader shall appoint one member who
is not employed by the Federal Government and is an expert on
issues affecting Black men and boys in America.
(3) The House of Representatives majority leader shall
appoint one member who is not employed by the Federal
Government and is an expert on issues affecting Black men and
boys in America.
(4) The House of Representatives minority leader shall
appoint one member who is not employed by the Federal
Government and is an expert on issues affecting Black men and
boys in America.
(5) The Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus shall be a
member of the Commission, as well as 5 additional Members of
the Congressional Black Caucus who shall be individuals that
either sit on the following committees of relevant
jurisdiction or are experts on issues affecting Black men and
boys in the United States, including--
(A) education;
(B) justice and Civil Rights;
(C) healthcare;
(D) labor and employment; and
(E) housing.
(6) The Staff Director of the United States Commission on
Civil Rights shall appoint one member from within the staff
of the United States Commission on Civil Rights who is an
expert in issues relating to Black men and boys.
(7) The Chair of the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission shall appoint one member from within
the staff of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission who is an expert in equal employment issues
impacting Black men.
(8) The Secretary of Education shall appoint one member
from within the Department of Education who is an expert in
urban education.
(9) The Attorney General shall appoint one member from
within the Department of Justice who is an expert in racial
disparities within the criminal justice system.
(10) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
appoint one member from within the Department of Health and
Human Services who is an expert in health issues facing Black
men.
(11) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall
appoint one member from within the Department of Housing and
Urban Development who is an expert in housing and development
in urban communities.
(12) The Secretary of Labor shall appoint one member from
within the Department of Labor who is an expert in labor
issues impacting Black men.
(13) The President of the United States shall appoint 2
members who are not employed by the Federal Government and
are experts on issues affecting Black men and boys in
America.
(c) Membership by Political Party.--If after the Commission
is appointed there is a partisan imbalance of Commission
members, the congressional leaders of the political party
with fewer members on the Commission shall jointly name
additional members to create partisan parity on the
Commission.

SEC. 503. OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO APPOINTMENT; REMOVAL.

(a) Timing of Initial Appointments.--Each initial
appointment to the Commission shall be made no later than 90
days after the Commission is established. If any appointing
authorities fail to appoint a member to the Commission, their
appointment shall be made by the Staff Director of the
Commission on Civil Rights.
(b) Terms.--Except as otherwise provided in this section,
the term of a member of the Commission shall be 4 years. For
the purpose of providing staggered terms, the first term of
those members initially appointed under paragraphs (1)
through (5) of section 502 shall be appointed to 2-year terms
with all other terms lasting 4 years. Members are eligible
for consecutive reappointment.
(c) Removal.--A member of the Commission may be removed
from the Commission at any time by the appointing authority
should the member fail to meet Commission responsibilities.
Once the seat becomes vacant, the appointing authority is
responsible for filling the vacancy in the Commission before
the next meeting.
(d) Vacancies.--The appointing authority of a member of the
Commission shall either reappoint that member at the end of
that member's term or appoint another person meeting the
qualifications for that appointment. In the event of a
vacancy arising during a term, the appointing authority
shall, before the next meeting of the Commission, appoint a
replacement to finish that term.

SEC. 504. LEADERSHIP ELECTION.

At the first meeting of the Commission each year, the
members shall elect a Chair and a Secretary. A vacancy in the
Chair or Secretary shall be filled by vote of the remaining
members. The Chair and Secretary are eligible for consecutive
reappointment.

SEC. 505. COMMISSION DUTIES AND POWERS.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a systematic
study of the conditions affecting Black men and boys,
including homicide rates, arrest and incarceration rates,
poverty, violence, fatherhood, mentorship, drug abuse, death
rates, disparate income and wealth levels, school performance
in all grade levels including postsecondary education and
college, and health issues.
(2) Trends.--The Commission shall document trends regarding
the topics described in paragraph (1) and report on the
community impacts of relevant government programs within the
scope of such topics.
(b) Proposal of Measures.--The Commission shall propose
measures to alleviate and remedy the underlying causes of the
conditions described in subsection (a), which may include
recommendations of changes to the law, recommendations for
how to implement related policies, and recommendations for
how to create, develop, or improve upon government programs.
(c) Suggestions and Comments.--The Commission shall accept
suggestions or comments pertinent to the applicable issues
from members of Congress, governmental agencies, public and
private organizations, and private citizens.
(d) Staff and Administrative Support.--The Office of the
Staff Director of the United States Commission on Civil
Rights shall provide staff and administrative support to the
Commission. All entities of the United States Government
shall provide information that is otherwise a public record
at the request of the Commission.

SEC. 506. COMMISSION MEETING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) First Meeting.--The first meeting of the Commission
shall take place no later than 30 days after the initial
members are all appointed. Meetings shall be focused on
significant issues impacting Black men and boys, for the
purpose of initiating research ideas and delegating research
tasks to Commission members to initiate the first annual
report described in section 507.
(b) Quarterly Meetings.--The Commission shall meet
quarterly. In addition to all quarterly meetings, the
Commission shall meet at other times at the call of the Chair
or as determined by a majority of Commission members.
(c) Quorum; Rule for Voting on Final Actions.--A majority
of the members of the Commission constitute a quorum, and an
affirmative vote of a majority of the members present is
required for final action.
(d) Expectations for Attendance by Members.--Members are
expected to attend all Commission meetings. In the case of an
absence, members are expected to report to the Chair prior to
the meeting and allowance may be made for an absent member to
participate remotely. Members will still be responsible for
fulfilling prior commitments, regardless of attendance
status. If a member is absent twice in a given year, he or
she will be reviewed by the Chair and appointing authority
and further action will be considered, including removal and
replacement on the Commission.
(e) Minutes.--Minutes shall be taken at each meeting by the
Secretary, or in that individual's absence, the Chair shall
select another Commission member to take minutes during that
absence. The Commission shall make its minutes publicly
available and accessible not later than one week after each
meeting.

SEC. 507. ANNUAL REPORT GUIDELINES.

The Commission shall make an annual report, beginning the
year of the first Commission meeting. The report shall
address the current conditions affecting Black men and boys
and make recommendations to address these issues. The report
shall be submitted to the President, the Congress, members of
the President's Cabinet, and the chairs of the appropriate
committees of jurisdiction. The Commission shall make the
report publicly available online on a centralized Federal
website.

SEC. 508. COMMISSION COMPENSATION.

Members of the Commission shall serve on the Commission
without compensation.

TITLE VI--ALTERNATIVES TO THE USE OF FORCE, DE-ESCALATION, BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH CRISES AND DUTY TO INTERVENE TRAINING

SEC. 601. TRAINING ON ALTERNATIVES TO USE OF FORCE, DE-
ESCALATION, AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CRISES.

(a) Definitions.--Section 901(a) of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C.
10251(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (27), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (28), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(29) the term `de-escalation' means taking action or
communicating verbally or non-verbally during a potential
force encounter in an attempt to stabilize the situation and

[[Page H2497]]

reduce the immediacy of the threat so that more time,
options, and resources can be called upon to resolve the
situation without the use of force or with a reduction in the
force necessary; and
``(30) the term `behavioral health crisis' means a
situation in which the behavior of a person puts the person
at risk of hurting himself or herself or others or prevents
the person from being able to care for himself or herself or
function effectively in the community, including a situation
in which a person is under the influence of a drug or
alcohol, is suicidal, or experiences symptoms of a mental
illness.''.
(b) COPS Program.--Section 1701 of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(n) Training in Alternatives to Use of Force, De-
escalation Techniques, and Behavioral Health Crises.--
``(1) Training curricula.--The Attorney General, in
consultation with relevant law enforcement agencies of States
and units of local government, labor organizations,
professional law enforcement organizations, and mental health
organizations, shall develop training curricula in--
``(A) alternatives to use of force and de-escalation
tactics; and
``(B) safely responding to a person experiencing a
behavioral health crisis, including techniques and strategies
that are designed to protect the safety of the person
experiencing the behavioral health crisis, law enforcement
officers, and the public.
``(2) Certified programs.--The Attorney General shall
establish a process to certify public and private entities
that offer courses in alternatives to use of force, de-
escalation tactics, and techniques and strategies for
responding to a behavioral health crisis using the training
curricula established under paragraph (1) or equivalents to
the training curricula established under paragraph (1).
``(3) Transitional regional training programs for state and
local agency personnel.--Until the end of fiscal year 2023,
the Attorney General shall, and thereafter may, provide
regional training to equip and certify personnel from law
enforcement agencies of States and units of local government
in a State to conduct training using the training curricula
established under paragraph (1).
``(4) List.--The Attorney General shall publish a list of
law enforcement agencies of States and units of local
government that employ officers who have successfully
completed a course described under paragraph (2) or (3),
which shall include--
``(A) the total number of law enforcement officers employed
by the agency;
``(B) the number of officers who have completed the course;
and
``(C) whether personnel from the law enforcement agency are
certified to conduct training.
``(5) Direct appropriations.--For the purpose of making
grants under this subsection there is authorized to be
appropriated, and there is appropriated, out of amounts in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2020, $100,000,000, to remain available
until expended.''.
(c) Byrne JAG Program.--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.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 508 as section 511; and
(2) by inserting after section 507 the following:

``SEC. 508. LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING PROGRAMS.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `approved course in alternatives to use of
force, de-escalation tactics, or techniques and strategies
for responding to a behavioral health crisis' means a course
using the training curricula established under section
1701(n)(1) or equivalents to such training curricula--
``(A) provided by the Attorney General under section
1701(n)(3); or
``(B) provided by a certified entity; and
``(2) the term `certified entity' means a public or private
entity that has been certified by the Attorney General under
section 1701(n)(2).
``(b) Authority.--The Attorney General shall, from amounts
made available for this purpose under subsection (e), make
grants to States for use by the State or a unit of government
located in the State to--
``(1) pay for costs associated with conducting the training
and for attendance by law enforcement personnel at an
approved course in alternatives to use of force, de-
escalation tactics, or techniques and strategies for
responding to a behavioral health crisis; and
``(2) procure training in alternatives to use of force, de-
escalation tactics, or techniques and strategies for
responding to a behavioral health crisis from a certified
entity.
``(c) Allocation of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Of the total amount appropriated to
carry out this section for a fiscal year, the Attorney
General shall allocate funds to each State in proportion to
the total number of law enforcement officers in the State as
compared to the total number of law enforcement officers in
the United States.
``(2) Training for state law enforcement officers.--Each
State may retain from the total amount of funds provided to
the State for the purposes described in this section an
amount that is not more than the amount that bears the same
ratio to the total amount of funds as the ratio of--
``(A) the total number of law enforcement officers employed
by the State; to
``(B) the total number of law enforcement officers employed
by the State and units of local government within the State.
``(3) Training for local law enforcement officers.--A State
shall make available to units of local government in the
State for the purposes described in this section the amounts
remaining after a State retains funds under paragraph (2). At
the request of a unit of local government, the State may use
an amount of the funds allocated to the unit of local
government under this paragraph to facilitate training in
alternatives to use of force, de-escalation tactics, or
techniques and strategies for responding to a behavioral
health crisis to law enforcement officers employed by the
unit of local government.
``(d) Reporting.--
``(1) Units of local government.--Any unit of local
government that receives funds from a State under subsection
(c)(3) shall submit to the State a report indicating--
``(A) the number of law enforcement officers that have
completed training described in this section;
``(B) the total number of law enforcement officers employed
by the unit of local government; and
``(C) any barriers to providing the training.
``(2) States.--Any State that receives funds under
subsection (c)(2) shall, after receiving the reports
described in paragraph (1), submit to the Attorney General--
``(A) such reports; and
``(B) a report by the State indicating--
``(i) the number of law enforcement officers employed by
the State that have completed training described in this
section;
``(ii) the total number of law enforcement officers
employed by the State; and
``(iii) any barriers to providing the training.
``(e) Direct Appropriations.--For the purpose of making
grants under this section there is authorized to be
appropriated, and there is appropriated, out of amounts in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2020, $250,000,000, to remain available
until expended.''.

SEC. 602. TRAINING ON DUTY TO INTERVENE.

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.), as
amended by section 201, is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 510. TRAINING ON DUTY TO INTERVENE.

``(a) Training Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General, in consultation
with relevant law enforcement agencies of States and units of
local governments and organizations representing rank and
file law enforcement officers, shall develop a training
curriculum for law enforcement agencies and officers on the
development, implementation, fulfillment, and enforcement of
a duty of a law enforcement officer to intervene when another
law enforcement officer is engaged in excessive use of force.
``(2) Certified programs.--The Attorney General shall
establish a process to certify public and private entities
that offer courses on the duty to intervene that are
equivalent to the training curriculum established under
paragraph (1).
``(3) Transitional regional training programs.--Until the
end of fiscal year 2023, the Attorney General shall provide
regional training workshops for law enforcement officers of
States and units of local government, using the training
curriculum established under paragraph (1).
``(4) List.--The Attorney General shall publish a list of
law enforcement agencies of States and units of local
government that employ officers who have successfully
completed a course described under paragraph (2) or (3),
which shall include the total number of law enforcement
officers employed by the agency and the number of officers
who have completed the course.
``(b) Grant Program.--
``(1) Authorization.--The Attorney General may make grants
to State and local law enforcement agencies to--
``(A) pay for costs associated with attendance by law
enforcement personnel at a training course approved by the
Attorney General under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection
(a); and
``(B) procure training in the duty to intervene from a
public or private entity certified under subsection (a)(2).
``(2) Application.--Each State or local law enforcement
agency seeking a grant under this subsection shall submit an
application to the Attorney General at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Attorney
General may require.
``(c) Direct Appropriations.--For the purpose of making
grants under this section, there is authorized to be
appropriated, and there is appropriated, out of amounts in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2020, $500,000,000, to remain available
until expended.''.

TITLE VII--NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION ACT

SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``National Criminal Justice
Commission Act of 2020''.

SEC. 702. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--

[[Page H2498]]

(1) it is in the interest of the United States to establish
a commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the
criminal justice system;
(2) there has not been a comprehensive study since the
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration
of Justice was established in 1965;
(3) in a span of 18 months, the President's Commission on
Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice produced a
comprehensive report entitled ``The Challenge of Crime in a
Free Society'', which contained 200 specific recommendations
on all aspects of the criminal justice system involving--
(A) Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments;
(B) civic organizations;
(C) religious institutions;
(D) business groups; and
(E) individual citizens; and
(4) developments over the intervening 50 years require once
again that Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments, law
enforcement agencies, including rank and file officers, civil
rights organizations, community-based organization leaders,
civic organizations, religious institutions, business groups,
and individual citizens come together to review evidence and
consider how to improve the criminal justice system.

SEC. 703. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

There is established a commission to be known as the
``National Criminal Justice Commission'' (referred to in this
title as the ``Commission'').

SEC. 704. PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION.

The Commission shall--
(1) undertake a comprehensive review of the criminal
justice system;
(2) submit to the President and Congress recommendations
for Federal criminal justice reform; and
(3) disseminate findings and supplemental guidance to the
Federal Government, as well as to State, local, and Tribal
governments.

SEC. 705. REVIEW, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND REPORT.

(a) General Review.--The Commission shall undertake a
comprehensive review of all areas of the criminal justice
system, including the criminal justice costs, practices, and
policies of the Federal, State, local, and Tribal
governments.
(b) Recommendations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall
submit to the President and Congress recommendations for
changes in Federal oversight, policies, practices, and laws
designed to prevent, deter, and reduce crime and violence,
reduce recidivism, improve cost-effectiveness, and ensure the
interests of justice at every step of the criminal justice
system.
(2) Unanimous consent.--If a unanimous vote of the members
of the Commission at a meeting where a quorum is present
pursuant to section 706(d) approves a recommendation of the
Commission, the Commission may adopt and submit the
recommendation under paragraph (1).
(3) Public access.--The recommendations submitted under
this subsection shall be made available to the public.
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall
disseminate to the Federal Government, as well as to State,
local, and Tribal governments, a report that details the
findings and supplemental guidance of the Commission
regarding the criminal justice system at all levels of
government.
(2) Majority vote.--If a majority vote of the members of
the Commission approves a finding or supplemental guidance at
a meeting where a quorum is present pursuant to section
706(d), the finding or supplemental guidance may be adopted
and included in the report required under paragraph (1).
(3) Dissents.--In the case of a member of the Commission
who dissents from a finding or supplemental guidance approved
by a majority vote under paragraph (2), the member may state
the reason for the dissent in writing and the report
described in paragraph (1) shall include the dissent.
(4) Public access.--The report submitted under this
subsection shall be made available to the public.
(d) Prior Commissions.--The Commission shall take into
consideration the work of prior relevant commissions in
conducting the review of the Commission.
(e) State and Local Governments.--In issuing the
recommendations and report of the Commission under this
section, the Commission shall not infringe on the legitimate
rights of the States to determine the criminal laws of the
States or the enforcement of such laws.
(f) Public Hearings.--The Commission shall conduct public
hearings in various locations around the United States.
(g) Consultation With Government and Nongovernment
Representatives.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall--
(A) closely consult with Federal, State, local, and Tribal
governments and nongovernment leaders, including--
(i) State, local, and Tribal law enforcement officials,
including rank and file officers;
(ii) legislators;
(iii) public health officials;
(iv) judges;
(v) court administrators;
(vi) prosecutors;
(vii) defense counsel;
(viii) victims' rights organizations;
(ix) probation and parole officials;
(x) criminal justice planners;
(xi) criminologists;
(xii) civil rights and liberties organizations;
(xiii) community-based organization leaders;
(xiv) formerly incarcerated individuals;
(xv) professional organizations; and
(xvi) corrections officials; and
(B) include in the final report required under subsection
(c) summaries of the input and recommendations of the leaders
consulted under subparagraph (A).
(2) United states sentencing commission.--To the extent the
review and recommendations required by this section relate to
sentencing policies and practices for the Federal criminal
justice system, the Commission shall conduct the review in
consultation with the United States Sentencing Commission.
(h) Sense of Congress on Unanimity.--It is the sense of
Congress that, given the national importance of the matters
before the Commission--
(1) the Commission should work toward developing findings
and supplemental guidance that are unanimously supported by
the members of the Commission; and
(2) a finding or supplemental guidance unanimously
supported by the members of the Commission should take
precedence over a finding or supplemental guidance that is
not unanimously supported.

SEC. 706. MEMBERSHIP.

(a) In General.--The Commission shall be composed of 14
members, as follows:
(1) The President shall appoint 1 member, who shall serve
as a co-chairperson of the Commission.
(2) The co-chairperson described in paragraph (1) shall
appoint 6 members in consultation with the leadership of--
(A) the Senate and House of Representatives of the same
political party as the President;
(B) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives of the same political party as the President;
and
(C) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate of the
same political party as the President.
(3) The leader of the Senate, in consultation with the
leader of the House of Representatives who is a member of the
opposite party of the President, shall appoint 1 member, who
shall serve as a co-chairperson of the Commission.
(4) The co-chairperson described in paragraph (3) shall
appoint 6 members in consultation with the leadership of--
(A) the Senate and House of Representatives of the opposite
political party as the President;
(B) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives of the opposite political party as the
President; and
(C) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate of the
opposite political party as the President.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--A member shall be appointed based upon
knowledge or experience in a relevant area, including--
(A) law enforcement;
(B) criminal justice;
(C) national security;
(D) prison and jail administration;
(E) prisoner reentry;
(F) public health, including--
(i) physical and sexual victimization;
(ii) drug addiction; or
(iii) mental health;
(G) the rights of victims;
(H) civil rights;
(I) civil liberties;
(J) court administration;
(K) social services; or
(L) State, local, or Tribal government.
(2) Law enforcement representation.--
(A) Members appointed by the co-chairpersons.--Of the 6
members appointed by the co-chairperson under subsection
(a)(2)--
(i) not fewer than 2 shall be representatives from Federal,
State, or local law enforcement agencies, including not less
than 1 representative from a rank and file organization; and
(ii) not fewer than 1 shall be a representative from a
Tribal law enforcement agency.
(B) Other members.--Of the 6 members appointed under
subsection (a)(4)--
(i) not fewer than 2 shall be representatives of Federal,
State, or local law enforcement agencies, including not less
than 1 representative from a rank and file organization; and
(ii) not fewer than 1 shall be a representative from a
Tribal law enforcement agency.
(3) Disqualification.--If an individual possesses a
personal financial interest in the discharge of a duty of the
Commission, the individual may not be appointed as a member
of the Commission.
(4) Terms.--A member shall be appointed for the duration of
the Commission.
(c) Appointments and First Meeting.--
(1) Appointments.--Each member of the Commission shall be
appointed not later than 45 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
(2) First meeting.--The Commission shall hold the first
meeting of the Commission on the date, whichever is later,
that is not later than--
(A) 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act; or
(B) 30 days after the date on which funds are made
available for the Commission.
(3) Ethics.--At the first meeting of the Commission, the
Commission shall--

[[Page H2499]]

(A) draft appropriate ethics guidelines for members and
staff of the Commission, including guidelines relating to--
(i) conflict of interest; and
(ii) financial disclosure;
(B) consult with the Committees on the Judiciary of the
Senate and the House of Representatives as a part of drafting
the guidelines; and
(C) provide each Committee described in subparagraph (B)
with a copy of the guidelines completed under subparagraph
(A).
(d) Meetings, Quorum, and Vacancies.--
(1) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of--
(A) the co-chairpersons; or
(B) a majority of the members of the Commission.
(2) Quorum.--Except as provided in paragraph (3)(B), a
majority of the members of the Commission shall constitute a
quorum for purposes of conducting business, except that 2
members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for
purposes of receiving testimony.
(3) Vacancies.--
(A) In general.--A vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect a power of the Commission, and the vacancy shall be
filled in the same manner in which the original appointment
was made.
(B) Quorum.--In the case of a vacancy occurring after the
date that is 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
until the date on which the vacancy is filled, a majority of
the members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum if--
(i) not fewer than 1 member of the Commission appointed
under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) is present; and
(ii) not fewer than 1 member of the Commission appointed
under paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a) is present.
(e) Actions of the Commission.--
(1) In general.--The Commission--
(A) shall, subject to section 705, act by a resolution
agreed to by a majority of the members of the Commission
voting and present; and
(B) may establish a panel composed of less than the full
membership of the Commission for purposes of carrying out a
duty of the Commission under this title, which--
(i) shall be subject to the review and control of the
Commission; and
(ii) may make a finding or determination that may be
considered a finding or determination of the Commission if
the finding or determination is approved by the Commission.
(2) Delegation.--If authorized by the co-chairpersons of
the Commission, a member, agent, or staff member of the
Commission may take an action that the Commission may take
under this title.

SEC. 707. ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Staff.--
(1) Executive director.--The Commission shall have a staff
headed by an Executive Director, who shall be paid at a rate
established for the Certified Plan pay level for the Senior
Executive Service under section 5382 of title 5, United
States Code.
(2) Appointments and compensation.--The co-chairpersons of
the Commission shall designate and fix the compensation of
the Executive Director and, in accordance with rules agreed
upon by the Commission, may appoint and fix the compensation
of such other personnel as may be necessary to enable the
Commission to carry out its functions, without regard to the
provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing
appointments in the competitive service, and without regard
to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter
53 of such title relating to classification and General
Schedule pay rates, except that no rate of pay fixed under
this subsection may exceed the equivalent of that payable for
a position at level V of the Executive Schedule under section
5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(3) Personnel as federal employees.--
(A) In general.--The Executive Director and any personnel
of the Commission who are employees shall be employees under
section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of
chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of such title 5.
(B) Members of the commission.--Subparagraph (A) shall not
be construed to apply to members of the Commission.
(4) The compensation of members.--
(A) Non-federal employees.--A member of the commission who
is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall
be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the Board.
(B) Federal employees.--A member of the commission who is
an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall serve
without compensation in addition to the compensation received
for the services of the member as an officer or employee of
the Federal Government.
(5) Travel expenses.--A member of the Commission shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from the home or regular places of business
of the member in the performance of services for the
Commission.
(b) Experts and Consultants.--With the approval of the
Commission, the Executive Director may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code.
(c) Detail of Government Employees.--Upon the request of
the Commission, a Federal Government employee may be detailed
to the Commission without reimbursement, and such detail
shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status
or privilege.
(d) Other Resources.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall have reasonable
access to materials, resources, statistical data, and other
information such Commission determines to be necessary to
carry out its duties from--
(A) the Library of Congress;
(B) the Department of Justice;
(C) the Office of National Drug Control Policy;
(D) the Department of State; and
(E) other agencies of the executive or legislative branch
of the Federal Government.
(2) Requests for resources.--The co-chairpersons of the
Commission shall make requests for the access described in
paragraph (1) in writing when necessary.
(e) Volunteer Services.--Notwithstanding section 1342 of
title 31, United States Code, the Commission--
(1) may--
(A) accept and use the services of an individual
volunteering to serve without compensation; and
(B) reimburse the individual described in subparagraph (A)
for local travel, office supplies, and for other travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code;
and
(2) shall consider the individual described in paragraph
(1) an employee of the Federal Government in performance of
those services for the purposes of--
(A) chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, relating to
compensation for work-related injuries;
(B) chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, relating
to tort claims; and
(C) chapter 11 of title 18, United States Code, relating to
conflicts of interest.
(f) Obtaining Official Data.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the
Commission may directly secure from an agency of the United
States information necessary to enable the Commission to
carry out this title.
(2) Procedures.--Upon the request of the co-chairpersons of
the Commission, the head of the agency shall furnish any
information requested under paragraph (1) to the Commission.
(3) Sensitive information.--The Commission may not have
access to sensitive information regarding ongoing
investigations.
(g) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as other
departments and agencies of the United States.
(h) Biannual Reports.--The Commission shall submit biannual
status reports to Congress regarding--
(1) the use of resources;
(2) salaries; and
(3) all expenditures of appropriated funds.
(i) Contracts.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may enter into a contract
with a Federal or State agency, a private firm, an
institution, or an individual for the conduct of an activity
necessary to the discharge of a duty or responsibility of the
Commission.
(2) Timing.--A contract, lease, or other legal agreement
the Commission enters into may not extend beyond the date of
the termination of the Commission.
(j) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, or dispose of a
gift or donation of a service or property.
(k) Administrative Assistance.--The Administrator of
General Services shall provide to the Commission, on a
reimbursable basis, the administrative support services
necessary for the Commission to carry out the
responsibilities of the Commission under this title, which
may include--
(1) human resource management;
(2) budget;
(3) leasing;
(4) accounting; or
(5) payroll services.
(l) Non-Applicability of FACA and Public Access to Meetings
and Minutes.--
(1) In general.--The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Commission.
(2) Meetings and minutes.--
(A) Meetings.--
(i) Administration.--Each meeting of the Commission shall
be open to the public, except that a meeting or any portion
of it may be closed to the public if it concerns matters or
information described in section 552b(c) of title 5, United
States Code.
(ii) Interested individuals.--An interested individual
may--

(I) appear at an open meeting;
(II) present an oral or written statement on the subject
matter of the meeting; and
(III) be administered an oath or affirmation.

(iii) Notice.--Each open meeting of the Commission shall be
preceded by timely public notice in the Federal Register of
the time, place, and subject of the meeting.
(B) Minutes and public access.--
(i) Minutes.--Minutes of each open meeting shall be kept
and shall contain a record of--

(I) the people present;
(II) a description of the discussion that occurred; and

[[Page H2500]]

(III) a copy of each statement filed.

(ii) Public access.--The minutes and records of each open
meeting and other documents that were made available to or
prepared for the Commission shall be available for public
inspection and copying at a single location in the offices of
the Commission.
(m) Archiving.--Not later than the date described in
section 709, all records and papers of the Commission shall
be delivered to the Archivist of the United States for
deposit in the National Archives.

SEC. 708. DIRECT APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.-- For the purpose of carrying out this
title, there is authorized to be appropriated, and there is
appropriated, out of amounts in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020,
$14,000,000, to remain available until expended.
(b) Limitation.--None of the funds provided by this section
may be used for international travel.

SEC. 709. SUNSET.

The Commission shall terminate 60 days after the date on
which the Commission submits the report required under
section 705(c) to Congress.

TITLE VIII--LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HIRING AND EDUCATION

Subtitle A--Hiring

SEC. 801. LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HIRING.

Section 1701(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (22) and (23) as paragraphs
(23) and (24), respectively;
(2) in paragraph (23), as so redesignated, by striking
``(21)'' and inserting ``(22)''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (21) the following:
``(22) for a law enforcement agency that has a
substantially different racial and ethnic demographic makeup
than the community served by the agency, to hire recruiters
and enroll law enforcement officer candidates in law
enforcement academies to become career law enforcement
officers who have racial and ethnic demographic
characteristics similar to the community;''.

SEC. 802. REAUTHORIZATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT PROGRAMS.

(a) Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Program.--Section 511 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-351; 82 Stat.
197), as so redesignated by this Act, is amended by striking
``this subpart $1,095,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
2006 through 2012'' and inserting ``this subpart, including
sections 508, 509, and 510, $800,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2021 through 2025''.
(b) Reauthorization of Cops on the Beat Grant Program.--
Section 1001(a)(11)(A) of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C.
10261(a)(11)(A)) is amended by striking ``part Q, to remain
available until expended $1,047,119,000 for each of fiscal
years 2006 through 2009'' and inserting ``part Q, including
section 1701(n), to remain available until expended
$400,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2025''.

Subtitle B--Training

SEC. 811. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:
(1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the National Museum of African American History and Culture.
(2) Eligible program participant.--The term ``eligible
program participant'' means a Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officer or recruiter, or a candidate in a law
enforcement academy.

SEC. 812. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

(a) Direct Appropriations.-- For the purpose of carrying
out this subtitle, there is authorized to be appropriated,
and there is appropriated, out of amounts in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2020, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended.
(b) Donations, Gifts, Bequests, and Devises of Property.--
In accordance with chapter 23 of title 36, United States
Code, and in furtherance of the purposes of this subtitle,
the Director is authorized to solicit, accept, hold,
administer, invest, and use donated funds and gifts,
bequests, and devises of property, both real and personal.
(c) Use of Funds.--The Director, using funds appropriated
under subsection (a) and resources received under subsection
(b), including through the engagement of eligible program
participants as appropriate and in consultation with the
National Law Enforcement Museum--
(1) shall develop and nationally disseminate a curriculum
to educate eligible program participants on the history of
racism in the United States; and
(2) shall carry out education program training for eligible
program participants that focuses on--
(A) racial reconciliation with the goal of understanding
the history of racism in America;
(B) improving relationships between law enforcement and the
communities they serve; and
(C) training eligible program participants who can
effectively train their law enforcement peers in their State
and communities.
(d) Applications.--The Director may seek the engagement of
an eligible program participant under subsection (c) by
requiring submission of an application to the Director at
such time, in such manner, and based on such competitive
criteria as the Director may require.

SEC. 813. ONLINE EDUCATION RESOURCES.

(a) Website.--The Director shall maintain on the website of
the National Museum of African American History and Culture a
special section designated for education resources to improve
awareness and understanding of the history of racism in the
United States and to promote racial reconciliation through
best practices to improve relations between law enforcement
and the communities they serve. The website and resources
shall be made publicly available.
(b) Information Distribution.--The Director shall
distribute information about the activities funded under this
subtitle through the website of the National Museum of
African American History and Culture, and shall respond to
inquiries for supplementary information concerning such
activities.
(c) Best Practices.--The information distributed by the
Director shall include best practices for educators.

SEC. 814. NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY AND
CULTURE COUNCIL.

The National Museum of African American History and Culture
Council established under section 5 of the National Museum of
African American History and Culture Act (20 U.S.C. 80r-3),
shall have governance responsibility for the programs and
activities carried out under this subtitle in accordance with
the National Museum of African American History and Culture
Act (20 U.S.C. 80r).

SEC. 815. ENGAGEMENT OF ELIGIBLE PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS.

(a) In General.--An eligible program participant shall be
engaged at the discretion of the Director to participate in
education program activities authorized under this subtitle
and approved by the Director pursuant to an application
described in section 812(d).
(b) Engagement Period.--Engagement of eligible program
participants under this subtitle shall be for a period
determined by the Director.
(c) Priority.--In engaging eligible program participants
under section 812, the Director shall give priority to
applications from such participants who work for a Federal,
State, or local law enforcement agency that does not, at the
time application is made, offer any education programming on
the history of racism or best practices to improve race
relations between law enforcement and the communities they
serve.

SEC. 816. ANNUAL REPORT.

Not later than February 1 of each year, the Director shall
submit to the Congress a report describing the activities
carried out under this subtitle.

TITLE IX--BEST PRACTICES AND STUDIES

SEC. 901. BEST PRACTICES.

(a) In General.--The National Criminal Justice Commission
established under title VIII (referred to in this title as
the ``Commission'') shall--
(1) develop recommended best practices guidelines to ensure
fair and effective policing tactics and procedures that
encourage equitable justice, community trust, and law
enforcement officer safety;
(2) include the recommended best practices described in
paragraph (1) in the recommendations of the Commission
required under section 705; and
(3) best practices for developing standards for law
enforcement officer due process.
(b) Requirements.--The best practices required to be
developed under subsection (a) shall include--
(1) best practices for the hiring, firing, suspension, and
discipline of law enforcement officers; and
(2) best practices for community transparency and optimal
administration of a law enforcement agency.

SEC. 902. STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Commission shall conduct a study on
the establishment and operation of use of force review boards
by States and units of local government, wherein citizens can
assist law enforcement agencies in reviewing use of force
incidents.
(b) Inclusion in Commission Recommendations.--The
Commission shall include a report on the study conducted
under subsection (a), which shall include recommendations, if
any, for best practices for State and local use of force
review boards, as well as best practices for developing
standards for law enforcement officer due process, in the
recommendations of the Commission required under section 705.

SEC. 903. MENTAL HEALTH STUDY.

(a) In General.--The Commission shall conduct a study on
law enforcement officer training, crisis intervention teams,
co-responder programs, personnel requirements, Federal
resources, and pilot programs needed to improve nationwide
law enforcement officer engagement on issues related to
mental health, homelessness, and addiction.
(b) Inclusion in Commission Recommendations.--The
Commission shall include a report on the study conducted
under subsection (a), which shall include recommendations, if
any, in the recommendations of the Commission required under
section 705.

SEC. 904. STUDY AND PROPOSAL ON IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR
DOJ GRANTS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``covered grant'' means a grant awarded under
a covered grant program; and
(2) the term ``covered grant program'' means--
(A) the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance 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.);

[[Page H2501]]

(B) the ``Cops on the Beat'' program under part Q of title
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
(34 U.S.C. 10381 et seq.); and
(C) any other grant program administered by the Attorney
General that provides funds to law enforcement agencies.
(b) Study and Proposal.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall
study, and submit to Congress a proposal regarding, the
possible implementation of a method to improve accountability
for law enforcement agencies that receive funds from covered
grant programs.
(c) Contents.--In carrying out subsection (b), the Attorney
General shall develop discrete performance metrics for law
enforcement agencies that apply for and receive funds from
covered grant programs, the parameters of which shall--
(1) establish benchmarks of progress, measured on a
semiannual or annual basis, as appropriate;
(2) require annual accounting by a recipient of a covered
grant of the progress made toward each benchmark described in
paragraph (1); and
(3) provide that--
(A) the failure to achieve a benchmark described in
paragraph (1) shall constitute a violation of the grant
agreement;
(B) if a recipient does not cure a violation by achieving
the applicable benchmark not later than 90 days after the
date of the violation, the recipient shall return the amounts
of the covered grant to the Attorney General; and
(C) a law enforcement agency that violates a grant
agreement may not apply for a covered grant for a period of 1
year.

TITLE X--CLOSING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT CONSENT LOOPHOLE ACT

SEC. 1001. 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 who has
been arrested by, is detained by, or is in 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) Abusive Sexual Contact.--Section 2244(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
``(5) subsection (c) of section 2243 of this title had the
sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this
title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both; or''.
(c) 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.''.
(d) 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. 1002. INCENTIVE FOR STATES.

(a) Authority to Make Grants.--The Attorney General is
authorized to make grants to States that have in effect a law
that--
(1) makes it a criminal offense for any person acting under
color of law of the State to engage in a sexual act (as
defined in section 2246 of title 18, United States Code) with
an individual who has been arrested by, is detained by, or is
in 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.
(b) Reporting Requirement.--A State that receives a grant
under this section 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 regarding persons engaging in a sexual act (as
defined in section 2246 of title 18, United States Code)
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 color of law was reported during the
previous year.
(c) Application.--A State seeking a grant under this
section shall submit an application to the Attorney General
at such time, in such manner, and containing such information
as the Attorney General may reasonably require, including
information about the law described in subsection (a).
(d) Grant Amount.--The amount of a grant to a State under
this section shall be in an amount that is not greater than
10 percent of the average of the total amount of funding of
the 3 most recent awards that the State received under the
following grant programs:
(1) Part T of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10441 et seq.) (commonly
referred to as the ``STOP Violence Against Women Formula
Grant Program'').
(2) Section 41601 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994
(34 U.S.C. 12511) (commonly referred to as the ``Sexual
Assault Services Program'').
(e) Grant Term.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall provide an
increase in the amount provided to a State under the grant
programs described in subsection (d) for a 2-year period.
(2) Renewal.--A State that receives a grant under this
section may submit an application for a renewal of such grant
at such time, in such manner, and containing such information
as the Attorney General may reasonably require.
(3) Limit.--A State may not receive a grant under this
section for more than 4 years.
(f) Uses of Funds.--A State that receives a grant under
this section shall use--
(1) 25 percent of such funds for any of the permissible
uses of funds under the grant program described in paragraph
(1) of subsection (d); and
(2) 75 percent of such funds for any of the permissible
uses of funds under the grant program described in paragraph
(2) of subsection (d).
(g) Direct Appropriations.--For the purpose of making
grants under this section, there is authorized to be
appropriated, and there is appropriated, out of amounts in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2020, $25,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
(h) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``State'' means each of the several States and the District
of Columbia, Indian Tribes, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the
Northern Mariana Islands.

SEC. 1003. 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 1002(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 (as defined in section 2246 of title
18, United States Code) 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 1001,
committed during the 1-year period covered by the report.

TITLE XI--EMERGENCY FUNDING

SEC. 1101. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.

(a) In General.--The amounts provided under this Act, or an
amendment made by this Act, are designated as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-
You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(g)).
(b) Designation in Senate.--In the Senate, this Act, and
the amendments made by this Act, is designated as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 4112(a) of H. Con.
Res. 71 (115th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2018.

Mr. STAUBER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about two stories, two
parallel stories that are not conflicting but coexist in our world
today.
The first story is that of a police officer in Anytown, USA, the
police officer who swore a solemn oath to serve and protect her
community and who every day proudly puts on the badge, gets in her car,
and goes to her job knowing full well that she may not come home. She
has a family and kids whom she wants to see graduate. She still puts on

[[Page H2502]]

the badge every day because she cares deeply about making her community
a better and safer place.
I know this story well from my 23 years as a law enforcement officer.
It is a narrative of pride that needs to be known and heard. It is a
narrative that deserves admiration and respect.
The second story is of a Black teenager also in Anytown, USA, who
watched Walter Scott get shot in the back in South Carolina, who saw
Ahmaud Arbery go out for a jog and not come back, and who saw George
Floyd murdered at the hands of police and who is genuinely afraid and
uncertain that, if he leaves his home and goes out to the store for his
mother, he may not come back.
These communities feel abandoned, they feel left behind by their
government, and by sitting in this Chamber today and bringing up a bill
that is so partisan that it will go nowhere after its consideration
here, the majority is proving them right. The majority is telling that
Black teenager and that officer that their concerns can wait until
after election day.
Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit asks that we consider both
stories, both perspectives. My motion to recommit, which is the JUSTICE
Act, was the product of Senator Tim Scott's and my sharing two
different stories and finding solutions that inspire real change. The
JUSTICE Act makes the necessary reforms that should have been made a
long time ago.
I know, when it comes to hiring an officer, there is no room for
mistakes. This JUSTICE Act improves access to prior disciplinary
records, ensuring that officers who continuously act outside of their
policies, procedures, and training can never move from department to
department.
It emphasizes community-reflective recruitment, ensuring the makeup
of police departments more closely resemble the communities that they
serve.
It restores investment in community policing. This is a philosophy
that you don't police your community; you police with your community.
It invests in improved police training, with a focus on de-escalation
techniques and the duty to intervene. It increases funding for body
camera usage, which helps identify bad officers and exonerate the good
ones.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you vote for this motion to recommit. I ask
that you vote for real change, for reforming our law enforcement, for
implementing community policing best practices, for more body cameras,
for de-escalation training, for duty to intervene, and for mental
health training.
I ask that you vote for that officer who wants to come home to her
kids and for that Black teenager who, today, feels left behind.
At a time when so many feel divided and our Nation needs healing, let
us be the shining city upon the hill. Let us stand together as one
Congress and as leaders of this Nation and advance real and much-needed
police reform.
Mr. Speaker, vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new under the Sun. The Black
people have battled police brutality since policing began in this
Nation. But times have changed; our country has changed.
A few years ago, we had to explain that racism still exists despite
the election of Barack Obama, twice. Now, 76 percent of Americans
consider racism and discrimination a big problem. That is progress.
A few years ago, we had to explain why we say Black lives matter.
Now, 67 percent of Americans support the Black Lives Matter movement.
Just a few weeks ago, we had to explain the anger and frustration we
saw unfolding in the streets. But, again, 67 percent of registered
voters supported the peaceful protest in response to George Floyd's
death.

This is a powerful moment for our Nation, and there is a powerful
movement in our Nation, a rainbow movement reflecting the wonderful
diversity of the whole world. Protests have taken place in over 60
countries and on every continent. Thousands are marching in the streets
screaming, ``I can't breathe.'' They are screaming for change,
transformative change, change that finally ends police brutality.
The movement is calling us to act. What is your answer?
I will vote for passage of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
And today my vote will be dedicated to the parents of Tamir Rice,
because today is his 18th birthday.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose
this motion to recommit and pass the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee),
who is my esteemed colleague and friend and the most senior CBC member
on the House Judiciary Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the question: Where is the party of
Lincoln?
Where is the moment of courage when the slaves were freed in that
moment in 1863?
This Senate bill, the MTR, does not rise to the occasion of those who
are in the streets. It fails the moment. It does not require anything.
It does not ban, require, or create.
The Senate bill is threadbare and lacking in substance. It does not
even provide a proper baseline for negotiation. It does not contain any
mechanism to hold law enforcement officers accountable in court for
their misconduct.
It does not address mens rea, a standard that should be the basis of
due process. For too long, it has allowed law enforcement officers to
evade criminal liability for excessive force.
It is absolutely imperative that any meaningful policing reform
contain accountability. It fails the moment.

{time} 1900

Tim Scott introduced the Walter Scott bill many years ago. It has yet
to see the light of day in the United States Senate.
Where is the party of Lincoln?
The JUSTICE Act has little to do with the urgent need, the cry of our
people, or those gathering around me in Cuney Homes who came to me,
friends of George Floyd, who knew Big Floyd, and said, ``What does this
bill do? Will it do anything?''
And as I told them about the bill, unlike this George Floyd Act,
which repurposes existing grant moneys, I let them know that this bill
will give money to community groups, not give bunches of dollars to
those who will continue the same patterns.
For too long, the disciplinary and misconduct records of officers who
pose a knowing threat to public safety have been shielded from the
public in a manner that has resulted in great harm to the communities
they are entrusted to. Our bill shines the light.
The Senate bill and the motion to recommit does nothing but closes
the door and says nothing about Black Lives Matter. In fact, it is a
system that encourages the collection of records. We can give him
credit for working in a hostile Chamber, but members of the CBC have
prioritized and made sure that the issues of today are important.
Let me be very clear. There are some notable distinctions between the
two proposals.
The House Justice and Policing Act vastly deals with a more systemic
approach to accountability by developing national policing standards
and requiring police departments to gain accreditation. It is a friend
of police. It gives and deals with professionalizations. It has a
national registry. It is not private. It is public. It is systemic
racism, and so we must be transparent.
This fails the moment. The Justice and Policing Act takes a
multiprong approach to eliminating the use of chokeholds. In this bill,
George Floyd would not have lived. In the Justice and Policing Act, we
could have saved his life and Eric Garner's.
How does the House bill ban no-knock warrants? We do it.
And the Senate bill, all it does is study. We have no time for
studying. It must be accountable time now. Now is the time.
Can you believe that the JUSTICE bill, Senator Scott's bill, this
bill does not have anything in it about use of

[[Page H2503]]

force? Nothing about banning or racial profiling, nothing to fix the
Federal criminal prosecution standards, nothing to roll back
unqualified immunity, and nothing on limitations of military hardware
and disbursements.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my brothers and sisters: Where is the party of
Lincoln?
Where is the party of the Constitution that says we create a more
perfect union to create justice?
Mr. Speaker, this bill here is the cry of those who have never been
heard. It gives us a pathway for success. I am glad to stand with the
Congressional Black Caucus and the Justice Department to say that this
bill has to pass, the Justice and Policing Act named after George
Floyd.
Ms. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.

____________________