SUPPORTING LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES; Congressional Record Vol. 161, No. 91
(House of Representatives - June 09, 2015)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H3959-H3963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               SUPPORTING LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 295) supporting local law enforcement agencies 
in their continued work to serve our communities, and supporting their 
use of body worn cameras to promote transparency to protect both 
citizens and officers alike.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 295

       Whereas the United States Department of Justice issued a 
     report titled, ``Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras'', which 
     details a number of benefits of body-worn cameras, 
     including--
       (1) increased transparency and citizen views of police 
     legitimacy;
       (2) improved behavior and civility among both police 
     officers and citizens; and
       (3) increased evidentiary benefits that expedite resolution 
     of citizen complaints or lawsuits and improving evidence for 
     arrest and prosecution; and
       Whereas the University of Cambridge's Institute of 
     Criminology conducted a 12-month study on the use of body-
     worn cameras used by law enforcement in the United Kingdom 
     and estimated that the cameras led to a 50 percent reduction 
     in use of force, and in addition, complaints against police 
     fell approximately by 90 percent: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) recognizes all law enforcement agencies and officers 
     for their tireless work to protect us and make our 
     communities safer;
       (2) recognizes the potential for the use of body-worn 
     cameras by on-duty law enforcement officers to improve 
     community relations, increase transparency, and protect both 
     citizens and police; and
       (3) encourages State and local law enforcement agencies to 
     consider the use of body-worn cameras, including policies and 
     protocols to handle privacy, storage, and other relevant 
     concerns.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson 
Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H. Res. 295, currently 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al 
Green) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) for introducing 
this resolution and commend them for their work on this important 
issue.
  Policing is an inherently dangerous job. Our law enforcement officers 
deserve our gratitude for the work they do on a daily basis to make 
sure that our streets are safe, the most helpless in our communities 
are protected, and those who commit crimes are brought to justice.
  I am very concerned that force is used appropriately and that police 
officers are taking appropriate steps to protect innocent civilians 
when they make encounters. There is increasing unrest in our urban 
communities about policing.
  I am also concerned with the repeated targeting of our police and law 
enforcement personnel. Last week, a terror suspect believed to be 
plotting to behead a Boston officer was killed in a confrontation with 
Boston police. Last month, two police officers were killed by criminals 
hoping to become cop killers. Officers Dean and Tate, responding to a 
routine traffic stop in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, were gunned down by a 
group of five men.

                              {time}  1730

  This comes on the heels of more widely known murders last year of 
Officers Ramos and Liu in New York, who were reportedly targeted by a 
man looking to kill a police officer.
  It is clear that we must find a better way for our police and 
citizens to interact both in everyday situations and when more 
difficult circumstances

[[Page H3960]]

arise. In May, the Judiciary Committee held a very informative and 
productive hearing on policing in the 21st Century, where we looked at 
many of these issues, including the use of body-worn cameras by police 
officers.
  Body-worn cameras present an opportunity to strengthen police and 
citizens' interactions, but there are many issues surrounding the use 
of body-worn cameras that should be addressed by legislators, law 
enforcement, and the general public before Congress or State 
legislatures mandate widespread use of this technology.
  We must be cognizant of the cost and resources associated not just 
with outfitting officers with body-worn cameras, but with the 
regulations, training, and compliance associated with their use. We 
should also be aware of the costs and privacy implications associated 
with storing the footage of body-worn cameras.
  Police routinely interact with crime victims, including minors, and 
members of the general public. Would all of these interactions be 
recorded and stored by law enforcement agencies? For how long? Who 
would have access to this information? For instance, could it be 
obtained in a civil suit, a divorce or custody case, or as part of a 
Freedom of Information Act request?
  If an officer exercises his or her discretion to turn off a camera, 
it is possible the courts would impose an adverse inference against the 
government if a defendant then argued that something improper happened 
while the camera was not filming. The courts could also impose an 
adverse inference if there is a technical or storage glitch that 
interferes with taping or access to the video.
  Society must also decide if it wants this technology recording us on 
a constant basis. Last week, the President signed the House-passed USA 
FREEDOM Act into law, which ended bulk metadata collection by the NSA.
  We should exercise caution before mandating use of a technology that 
has the potential to gather and store information about Americans, many 
of them innocent civilians, based simply on a person's interaction with 
a police officer.
  Body-worn police cameras can serve an important purpose in improving 
interactions between law enforcement and the general public and be a 
valuable source of evidence of wrongdoing; but we, as lawmakers and as 
a society, must ensure that this technology is used appropriately.
  We have achieved this before when addressing the use of police 
dashboard cameras, but we must now do so again in a situation that is 
potentially much more intrusive.
  Several police departments have already begun using body-worn 
cameras, and various pilot programs are also underway. Their successes 
and pitfalls will be instructive as we explore expanded use of this 
technology.
  I once again thank the gentleman from Texas for his work on this 
resolution and also applaud the work of our law enforcement officers 
nationwide.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today to support this resolution and to thank my colleagues 
for putting forward H. Res. 295, particularly Mr. Al Green of Texas and 
Mr. Clay and Mr. Cleaver--both of whom represent the Missouri area--and 
a number of other Members who have joined in on sponsoring this 
legislation.
  I like this because it is a kick-start to what Members of Congress, 
Mr. Speaker, have been talking about, and what we have talked about, 
criminal justice reform.
  As we well know, we in the Judiciary Committee are receiving 
information. We are listening to Members; we are obviously listening to 
Members who are committed and dedicated, and we are committed to 
criminal justice reform.
  This is the right kind of kick-start to be able to put on minds of 
individuals that we know that this effort of criminal justice reform 
requires the communication and cooperation of our law enforcement 
officers and as well to recognize the vitality and the importance of 
communities who have argued Black lives matter--or they have just 
argued that lives matter, which they do.
  Let me, first of all, join Mr. Goodlatte on acknowledging the tragedy 
of police shootings. Whether or not it was the heinous shootings in New 
York on two occasions and probably more or whether or not it was a 
recent incident in Houston, Texas, when a valiant officer was mowed 
down by a fleeing felon, or any number of incidents that have caught 
our men and women in the line of fire--and their families have seen 
their service, their life, and their contributions snuffed out by 
violence--that is not something that we applaud and we certainly abhor.
  I believe the language in this resolution gives us the sense of 
Congress that allows us to recognize all law enforcement agencies and 
officers, thanking them for their tireless work to protect us and make 
our communities safer, and recognize the potential for the use of body-
worn cameras by on-duty law enforcement officers, to improve community 
relations, increase transparency, and protect both citizens and police.
  I will assure you that the Judiciary Committee will thoughtfully look 
at legislation that fits squarely on the framework of this taking into 
consideration many concerns and encourages State and local law 
enforcement agencies to consider the use of body-worn cameras, 
including policies and protocols, to handle privacy, storage, and other 
relevant issues.
  I am glad those are recognized because we are a country of laws, and 
we recognize the civil liberties and civil rights of all citizens.
  As we discuss this legislation, however, I want to emphasize the 
importance of the timing. It is time for comprehensive policing and 
criminal justice reform. We are witnessing a sea change unlike many 
others with support for this great cause spanning the ideological and 
party divide. We in the Judiciary Committee have spoken about it and 
are finding common ways to work together.
  In the area of policing, the problems revealed by several of the more 
notorious incidents involving the use of lethal force against unarmed 
citizens have captured the attention of the Nation over the past few 
months and demonstrates a critical need for a national response.
  Law enforcement officers individually will indicate training is a key 
element of this. Any response to these tragic events must go hand in 
hand with a holistic view of criminal justice reform. It will do us no 
good to be able to point at one group and not try to help another, so I 
am very grateful that my State, the State of Texas, has contributed to 
this dialogue and most recently in grand jury reform.
  As I have joined with my colleagues to acknowledge and celebrate law 
enforcement and encourage the move forward on criminal justice reform, 
I am grateful to again do it today, but we should also look at a vast 
array of opportunities.
  Sentencing and prison reform should be on our agenda. One such 
proposal would give the Federal Bureau of Prisons the discretion to 
release nonviolent prisoners who served at least half of their 
sentence, are 45 or more years old, and who have not been disciplined 
for a violent offense. This would not only alleviate some prison 
overcrowding, but it would dip into the $75 billion that we are paying 
for incarceration.
  Congress should also look at the fact in the Federal system that 
right now we give 47 days for 54 days of good time. If we did one for 
one, it would be an opportunity to save millions of dollars, at least 
$41 million; and 4,000 persons would be able to be lifted who would be 
able to be rehabilitated.
  One of the more difficult parts of coming into the criminal justice 
system is the journey of coming out of it. Where an individual has paid 
his or her debt, the process of reentering society is paid with 
tremendous and often insurmountable obstacles.
  I have drafted legislation that will allow those with a criminal 
conviction to have a fair chance to compete for jobs with Federal 
agencies and contractors. This ``ban the box'' measure delays a 
potential employer's inquiry into the applicant's criminal history 
until later in the hiring process. Employers can still ask, but pushing 
the inquiry into a later stage in the process where you have seen 
whether this person is ready and able to have a job.
  Again, this resolution speaks about our view and affection for our 
law enforcement and adding more tools. Each of us have had wonderful 
experiences with those men and women who serve.

[[Page H3961]]

  Mr. Speaker, the time for comprehensive policing and criminal justice 
reform has arrived. We are witnessing a sea shift unlike any others, 
with support for this great cause spanning the ideological and party 
divide.
  In the area of policing, the problems revealed by several of the more 
notorious incidents involving the use of lethal force against unarmed 
citizens has captured the attention of the nation over the past few 
months and demonstrates the critical need for a national response.
  And any response to these tragic events must go hand-in-hand with 
changes to the entirety of our criminal justice system.
  As a member of the House Judiciary Committee; as the ranking member 
of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and 
Investigations; and as a Representative from Houston, let me extend my 
thanks to the Congressman from my home state of Texas for contributing 
to the discussion of this very important and timely issue.
  Just as I have joined with him in Houston before--to acknowledge and 
celebrate law enforcement and to encourage and move forward criminal 
justice reform--I am grateful to do so again today.
  The very fact that this measure is on the floor today is a great 
indicator that Congress is ready for comprehensive criminal justice and 
policing reform.
  This is why I am looking at reforms that will address all aspects of 
our criminal justice system and drafting legislation accordingly.
  One such proposal would give the Bureau of Prisons discretion to 
release nonviolent prisoners who have served at least half their 
sentence, are 45 or more years old, and who have not been disciplined 
for violent conduct while in prison.
  This would would not only alleviate some prison over-crowding, it 
would result in substantial cost savings by removing the expensive 
medical care for older prisoners.
  By including a clarification of the federal prisoner good time credit 
law, the cost savings of this proposal is even more significant. 
Congress intended for all federal prisoners to be eligible for 54 days 
of good time credit, not 47 days as currently interpreted by the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons.
  This small change--just one week per year--will not only reflect our 
original intent, it will save at least $41 million annually.
  One of the most difficult parts of coming into the criminal justice 
system is the journey of coming out of it.
  For an individual who has paid his or her debt, the process of re-
entering society is paved with tremendous, and often insurmountable, 
obstacles.
  I have drafted legislation that will allow those with a criminal 
conviction to have a fair chance to compete for jobs with federal 
agencies and contractors. This ``ban-the-box'' measure delays a 
potential employer's inquiry into the applicant's criminal history 
until later in the hiring process.
  Employers can still ask--but pushing the inquiry until a later stage 
in the process allows applicants to get a foot in the door and be 
considered at the early stage on their merits alone.
  Many studies, including one released by the Journal of Adolescent 
Health, demonstrate that the adolescent brain continues to develop as 
young persons mature well into their 20s. Yet, we begin holding our 
young offenders accountable as adults when they reach the age of 18, 
16, and sometimes even earlier. And we send them off to what many 
describe as ``criminal college.''
  This is why I am developing legislation that will provide judges with 
new and different options when a young offender comes before them. 
These options will give judges discretion to tailor a punishment to 
that young offender's needs.
  And, when sending a young offender to prison is necessary, my 
legislation will ensure that the Bureau of Prisons separates these 
young offenders out from the rest of the prison population and provides 
specialized programs for their needs. This will put young offenders on 
a path for change, not one of crime.
  It is not enough to improve the system of criminal justice, we must 
also address the unnecessary loss of life that can result from police 
and civilian interactions. Reform must take a step towards increasing 
trust between our communities and law enforcement.
  This is why I am developing legislation that will provide law 
enforcement agencies with the funding and assistance to put in place 
the policies, protocols, and training programs in accord with national 
accreditation standards.
  But rebuilding the trust in this relationship also requires greater 
transparency when government responds to incidents involving the use of 
lethal force against unarmed citizens.
  This is why I have drafted legislation that provides incentives and 
support for jurisdictions to bring in an independent investigation and 
prosecution team for an unbiased review of such incidents.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time on this debate.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure at this time to yield 
5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), the 
author of this legislation.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is always an honor to stand in 
the well of the House and have an opportunity to advocate on behalf of 
the constituents of the Ninth Congressional District. Today is no 
exception.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand here in support of bipartisan 
legislation, legislation that encourages law enforcement to use body 
cameras. This legislation is legislation that I am proud to say has 
received a good deal of support and a good deal of consideration and 
deliberation.
  I would like to thank the Speaker of the House, Mr. Boehner, for his 
assistance in bringing this legislation forward. Of course, the 
Honorable Nancy Pelosi must be given kudos as well. I thank her for 
allowing the legislation to come forward and assisting.
  The Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, I want to thank him because we had a 
conversation concerning this legislation. Of course, the chairperson of 
the Judiciary Committee, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, he and I have had 
an opportunity to talk through this legislation, and I am eternally 
grateful for the consideration that you have given, sir, and I thank 
you.
  I also would like to thank the dean of the House of Representatives, 
the Honorable John Conyers. He has been here on so many occasions when 
legislation that is exceedingly important has been passed upon and has 
been a voice, a voice on all of these issues through the years. I am 
proud to say that I had an opportunity to speak to him about this 
legislation.
  Of course, I want to thank Mr. Ted Poe of Texas. He and I came to 
Congress together, and we worked together. This is a piece of 
legislation that he was the first to sign onto, H. Res. 295.
  Mr. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, he and I have worked together to 
shepherd this from the very beginning, and he is still a part of it. He 
is not here tonight, but he is with us on this legislation. I am proud 
to say he is a friend, and he has been a partner throughout the effort 
to bring this legislation to the floor of the House.
  Mr. Luetkemeyer, he has been a friend in this; Mr. Clay of Missouri; 
Mr. Yoder of Kansas; and, of course, Ms. Clarke of New York--all 
friends and all supportive of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution, as has been indicated, is the 
beginning. I don't see it as the end of a process. I see it as more of 
a preamble with the Constitution to follow. I see it as a lawyer might 
see an opening statement with the closing statement yet to come.
  Of course, as a Christian, I see it as a part of Genesis, with many 
revelations yet to come. It is a good first step, and it is a good step 
in the right direction. I don't see it as the end of the process, but I 
do want to commend and thank those who have helped us to get to this 
point.
  I would cite now, if I may, a Justice Department report. This report 
styled ``Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras'' found that body-worn 
cameras increased transparency. People have the opportunity to see what 
actually took place. It makes a difference because this will increase 
police legitimacy.
  Officers don't have to get into disputes about what actually 
occurred. The empirical evidence is there by way of the camera's eye.
  It will improve citizen and police behavior. Once the camera is on 
and once people know that it is on--that is both citizens and police 
officers--their behavior tends to be adjusted such that we get better 
results.
  It will improve effective prosecution. This is evidence that can be 
introduced into court. When it is introduced, it can help effectuate 
positive results.
  Another study, a study from the University of Cambridge, its 
Institute of Criminology, after a 12-month study, found a 50 percent 
reduction in the use of force as a result of body cameras, a 50 percent 
reduction in use of force, a 90 percent reduction in complaints against 
police officers as a result of body cameras being utilized.
  Of course, there is a final study that I will cite in Rialto, 
California. This

[[Page H3962]]

report from Rialto, California, indicates that, after 1 year of use of 
body cameras, there was a 60 percent reduction in the use of force and 
an 88 percent reduction in complaints against police officers.
  The evidence is in. It is clear that these body cameras do provide an 
opportunity for us to have the transparency we need, for us to provide 
legitimacy for both police officers and citizenry but, more 
importantly, to reduce the complaints that we see emanating from scenes 
that are disputed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we see a 
reduction in complaints. As we view the many incidents that have 
occurred around the country, there is no question that there is a 
divide. I believe that these body cameras can span the chasm across the 
divide and make a difference in the perception that we have in the way 
our police and our communities interact with each other.
  I am proud to be a sponsor, and I am proud to have the cosponsors 
that we have. I am proud that the chairperson of the Judiciary 
Committee has signed onto this and that the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee is on board.
  I want to thank my colleague from Houston, Texas, the Honorable 
Sheila Jackson Lee, who has served on the Judiciary Committee for many, 
many years, and I am most appreciative that she, too, finds favor with 
this piece of legislation. I am honored that she is on the floor 
tonight to shepherd it through, and I pray that my colleagues all will 
support what I believe to be a piece of legislation that can span the 
chasm between the police and the community in a most positive way.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no speakers remaining, and I am 
prepared to yield back.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume as I am the final speaker.
  First of all, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his very eloquent 
explanation of this legislation. Let me add my appreciation as well to 
Chairman Goodlatte, to Ranking Member Conyers, and to Chairman 
Sensenbrenner. It is certainly my pleasure to manage and to work with 
this legislation, in the purpose of this legislation.
  I close with just a few points that I feel compelled to comment on. 
As I do so, I am not giving all of the names of those fallen. As I have 
indicated, we tragically buried an HPD officer just a couple of weeks 
ago and, of course, officers in Mississippi, officers in New Mexico, in 
Omaha, Nebraska, and in Pennsylvania, among others. We recognize that 
we are challenged and that we must find that common ground. Again, I 
note that this kick start will help us to look at comprehensive 
criminal justice reform.
  Let me just add one last point on the young offenders issue that may 
be somewhat similar to the video that has now imploded across the 
airwaves of America in McKinney, Texas. One study dealing with young 
offenders or individual adolescents includes a report by the Journal of 
Adolescent Health which demonstrates that the adolescent brain 
continues to develop as young persons mature well into their twenties; 
yet we begin holding our young offenders accountable as adults when 
they reach the age of 18 and sometimes earlier, and we send them off to 
what many describe as a criminal college. So I am hoping that we will 
have legislation that can address by science the concept, if you will, 
of how we treat those from 18 to 24.
  This legislation allows us to build on policing and community trust. 
I am looking forward to working with law enforcement agencies with the 
funding and assistance to put in place the policies and protocols 
dealing with training, deescalation, accreditation. That is, of course, 
something that we hope to be working on with the full Judiciary 
Committee.
  There are some stark differences of treatment between two cities--the 
city of Charleston, South Carolina, where a tragic incident occurred 
and where the city responded immediately, and the city of Cleveland, 
where a tragic incident occurred and where the city did not respond 
immediately.
  Then, this past weekend, we saw confusing footage, I think, that 
dealt with teenagers at a pool party. We know that police were called. 
We know that this party was, really, a party of girls who happened to 
be African American, and we understand that some boys, who tend to like 
to find girls, came and may have caused somewhat of a disturbance. The 
reason I think it is important as we discuss this legislation is that 
the bill does indicate our appreciation for law enforcement. My words 
say that this will allow us to kick-start and look at issues where we 
can work together to get along. But as the video indicates, we see a 
scattering of young people, and we see a number of foul-mouthed 
comments being made coming from one particular officer. They are quotes 
I will not offer to repeat on this floor.
  I submit for the Record, Mr. Speaker, an article from The Atlantic 
as, I think, this is a testament to how we can work to avoid this kind 
of public incident.

                   [From the Atlantic, June 8, 2015]

                          (By Yoni Appelbaum)

       On Friday, a large group of teens gathered for a pool party 
     in the city of McKinney, Texas. Shortly thereafter, someone 
     called the police. And by Sunday night, as footage of the 
     police response spread across the internet, the McKinney 
     Police Department announced it was placing Eric Casebolt, the 
     patrol supervisor shown in the video, on administrative 
     leave.
       It is the latest in a string of incidents of police using 
     apparently excessive force against African Americans that has 
     captured public attention. And it took place at a communal 
     pool--where, for more than a century, conflicts over race and 
     class have often surfaced.
       The video shows a foul-mouthed police corporal telling the 
     young men he encounters to get down, and the young women to 
     take off, although far more obscenely. When several seated 
     young men appear to ask, politely, for permission to leave, 
     he explodes at them: ``Don't make me fucking run around here 
     with thirty pounds of goddamn gear in the sun because you 
     want to screw around out here.'' The corporal was white. The 
     young people he detained were, almost without exception, 
     black.
       The video next shows him repeatedly cursing at a group of 
     young women, telling them to move on. Then he wrestles one to 
     the ground. As bystanders react in horror, and several rush 
     toward the young woman as if to her assistance, he draws his 
     sidearm. They flee. He returns to the teenager, wrestles her 
     back down, forces her face into the ground, and places both 
     knees on her back.
       The McKinney police said, in a statement, that they were 
     called to respond to the Craig Ranch North Community Pool for 
     a report of ``a disturbance involving multiple juveniles at 
     the location, who do not live in the area or have permission 
     to be there, refusing to leave.'' They added that additional 
     calls reported fighting, and that when the crowd refused to 
     comply with the first responding officers, nine additional 
     units were deployed.
       The mayor, Brian Loughmiller, described himself as 
     ``disturbed and concerned,'' and the police chief vowed ``a 
     complete, and thorough, investigation.''
       Like many flourishing American suburbs, McKinney has 
     struggled with questions of equity and diversity. The city is 
     among the fastest-growing in America, and its residents hail 
     from a wide range of backgrounds. Formal, legal segregation 
     is a thing of the past. Yet stark divides persist.
       In 2009, McKinney was forced to settle a lawsuit alleging 
     that it was blocking the development of affordable housing 
     suitable for tenants with Section 8 vouchers in the more 
     affluent western portion of the city. East of Highway 75, 
     according to the lawsuit, McKinney is 49 percent white; to 
     its west, McKinney is 86 percent white. The plaintiffs 
     alleged that the city and its housing authority were 
     ``willing to negotiate for and provide low-income housing 
     units in east McKinney, but not west McKinney, which amounts 
     to illegal racial steering.''
       All three of the city's public pools lie to the east of 
     Highway 75. Craig Ranch, where the pool party took place, 
     lies well to its west. BuzzFeed reports that the fight broke 
     out when an adult woman told the teens to go back to 
     ``Section 8 housing.''
       Craig Ranch North is the oldest residential portion of a 
     2,200 acre master-planned community. ``The neighborhood is 
     made up of single-family homes,'' says the developer's 
     website, ``and includes a community center with two pools, a 
     park and a playground.'' Private developments like Craig 
     Ranch now routinely include pools, often paid for by dues to 
     homeowners' associations, and governed by their rules. But 
     that, in itself, represents a remarkable shift.
       At their inception, communal swimming pools were public, 
     egalitarian spaces. Most early public pools in America aimed 
     more for hygiene than relaxation, open on alternate days to 
     men and women. In the North, at least, they served bathers 
     without regard for race. But in the 1920s, as public swimming

[[Page H3963]]

     pools proliferated, they became sites of leisure and 
     recreation. Alarmed at the sight of women and men of 
     different races swimming together, public officials moved to 
     impose rigid segregation.
       As African Americans fought for desegregation in the 1950s, 
     public pools became frequent battlefields. In Marshall, 
     Texas, for example, in 1957, a young man backed by the NAACP 
     sued to force the integration of a brand-new swimming pool. 
     When the judge made it clear the city would lose, citizens 
     voted 1,758-89 to have the city sell all of its recreational 
     facilities rather than integrate them. The pool was sold to a 
     local Lions' Club, which was able to operate it as a whites-
     only private facility.
       The decisions of other communities were rarely so 
     transparent, but the trend was unmistakable. Before 1950, 
     Americans went swimming as often as they went to the movies, 
     but they did so in public pools. There were relatively few 
     club pools, and private pools were markers of extraordinary 
     wealth. Over the next half-century, though, the number of 
     private in-ground pools increased from roughly 2,500 to more 
     than four million. The declining cost of pool construction, 
     improved technology, and suburbanization all played important 
     roles. But then, so did desegregation. As historian Jeff 
     Wiltse argues in his 2007 book, Contested Waters: A Social 
     History of Swimming Pools in America:
       Although many whites abandoned desegregated public pools, 
     most did not stop swimming. Instead, they built private 
     pools, both club and residential, and swam in them. . . . 
     Suburbanites organized private club pools rather than fund 
     public pools because club pools enabled them to control the 
     class and racial composition of swimmers, whereas public 
     pools did not.
       Today, that complicated legacy persists across the United 
     States. The public pools of mid-century--with their sandy 
     beaches, manicured lawns, and well-tended facilities--are 
     vanishingly rare. Those sorts of amenities are now generally 
     found behind closed gates, funded by club fees or homeowners' 
     dues, and not by tax dollars. And they are open to those who 
     can afford to live in such subdivisions, but not to their 
     neighbors just down the road.
       Whatever took place in McKinney on Friday, it occurred 
     against this backdrop of the privatization of once-public 
     facilities, giving residents the expectation of control over 
     who sunbathes or doggie-paddles alongside them. Even if some 
     of the teens were residents, and others possessed valid guest 
     passes, as some insisted they did, the presence of ``multiple 
     juveniles . . . who do not live in the area'' clearly 
     triggered alarm. Several adults at the pool reportedly placed 
     calls to the police. And none of the adult residents shown in 
     the video appeared to manifest concern that the police 
     response had gone too far, nor that its violence was 
     disproportionate to the alleged offense.
       To the contrary. Someone placed a sign by the pool on 
     Sunday afternoon. It read, simply: ``Thank you McKinney 
     Police for keeping us safe.''

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is not dealing with a vast group 
of protesters, which, ultimately, did occur in the last 24 hours in 
that area. This is dealing with youngsters. Many of us raise children 
and send them to pools and various camps, and we hope they will be 
well, but this is understanding the whole level of law enforcement. 
Again, I believe it is time for the Congress to re-create the criminal 
justice system.
  Juveniles are naturally fearful of authority and lack maturity when 
faced with fearful events. Running is the natural instinct of most 
youth, and in this case, the youth attempted to leave when the police 
approached to disperse the crowd. Then the police chased, shooting a 
Taser. When the officer confronted the young girl with aggression, 
other youth attempted to help her--that is, teenagers--who were also 
threatened with force by the officers. These children received mixed 
messages. Establishing trusting relationships between youth and police 
officers is of the utmost responsibility.
  What I would say is that the outrage and the expressions of a 
community and parents came about because we were not talking to each 
other, because actions did not track what those young people were doing 
in McKinney. They were being teenagers. They were running. They may 
have had the incidences of misbehavior, and, frankly, they could have 
been handled in a way that the misbehavior could have been addressed.
  Why now?
  Again, I opened with the remarks that we now have an opportunity to 
kick-start this wonderful discussion of criminal justice reform. 
Wonderful? Yes, because, in America, we are a nation of civilians and 
law. The civilian law enforcement is made up of those who implement 
those laws, but the Constitution reigns as well. I look forward to 
working with the chairman and the ranking member and all of the Members 
of this body and the Judiciary Committee for a very constructive 
journey on letting the American people know that we hear their pain, 
that we respect those who uphold the law, and that we are going to work 
constructively to do that.
  I left Houston while talking to a police officer. I know he is not 
listening, but let me just simply say thank you for the service that 
you give. Hopefully, he will hear this and will know that we are 
committed to working together in this Congress. I ask my colleagues to 
support House Resolution 295.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Al Green) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) 
for their hard work on this, for coming to see me and others on our 
side of the aisle about this important issue, and for working with us 
on getting the language straight in this resolution in order to make 
sure that we are properly encouraging this exploration while also 
taking into account the issues that arise with the use of body cameras.
  I want to thank the ranking member and the former chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers, and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, Ms. Jackson Lee, for their work on this as well. I also 
want to thank all of the staff involved.
  This is an important issue, and it will help to inform us as we move 
ahead on a number of issues related to criminal justice reform. I urge 
my colleagues to support the resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 295.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________