Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

116th Congress   }                                   {   Rept. 116-434
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session      }                                   {          Part 1

======================================================================



 
              GEORGE FLOYD JUSTICE IN POLICING ACT OF 2020

                                _______
                                

 June 19, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Nadler, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 7120]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 7120) to hold law enforcement accountable for 
misconduct in court, improve transparency through data 
collection, and reform police training and policies, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................    37
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................    39
Hearings.........................................................    68
Committee Consideration..........................................    69
Committee Votes..................................................    69
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    95
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures and Congressional 
  Budget Office Cost Estimate....................................    95
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    95
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................    95
Advisory on Earmarks.............................................    95
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................    95
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............   113
Committee Correspondence.........................................   138
Minority Views...................................................   140

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

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--JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF LYNCHING ACT

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Findings.
Sec. 403. Lynching.

                   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, Taser, 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--
          ``(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.''.

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).
          (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);
                  (B) encourage the pursuit of accreditation of 
                Federal, State, local, and Tribal law enforcement 
                agencies by certified law enforcement accreditation 
                organizations; and
                  (C) develop recommendations for implementation of a 
                national accreditation requirement tied to Federal 
                grant eligibility.
  (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.''.

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 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);
                  (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.
  (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, 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;
          (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 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:

``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) Controlled firearms, ammunition, bayonets, grenade 
        launchers, grenades (including stun and flash-bang),and 
        explosives.
          ``(B) Controlled vehicles, highly mobile multi-wheeled 
        vehicles, mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, trucks, 
        truck dump, truck utility, and truck carryall.
          ``(C) Drones that are armored, weaponized, or both.
          ``(D) Controlled aircraft that--
                  ``(i) are combat configured or combat coded; or
                  ``(ii) have no established commercial flight 
                application.
          ``(E) Silencers.
          ``(F) Long-range acoustic devices.
          ``(G) Items in the Federal Supply Class of banned items.
  ``(2) The Secretary may not require, as a condition of a transfer 
under this section, that a Federal or State agency demonstrate the use 
of any small arms or ammunition.
  ``(3) The limitations under this subsection shall also apply with 
respect to the transfer of previously transferred property of the 
Department of Defense from one Federal or State agency to another such 
agency.
  ``(4)(A) The Secretary may waive the applicability of paragraph (1) 
to a vehicle described in subparagraph (B) of such paragraph (other 
than a mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicle), if the Secretary 
determines that such a waiver is necessary for disaster or rescue 
purposes or for another purpose where life and public safety are at 
risk, as demonstrated by the proposed recipient of the vehicle.
  ``(B) If the Secretary issues a waiver under subparagraph (A), the 
Secretary shall--
          ``(i) submit to Congress notice of the waiver, and post such 
        notice on a public Internet website of the Department, by not 
        later than 30 days after the date on which the waiver is 
        issued; and
          ``(ii) require, as a condition of the waiver, that the 
        recipient of the vehicle for which the waiver is issued 
        provides public notice of the waiver and the transfer, 
        including the type of vehicle and the purpose for which it is 
        transferred, in the jurisdiction where the recipient is located 
        by not later than 30 days after the date on which the waiver is 
        issued.
  ``(5) The Secretary may provide for an exemption to the limitation 
under subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) in the case of parts for 
aircraft described in such subparagraph that are transferred as part of 
regular maintenance of aircraft in an existing fleet.
  ``(6) The Secretary shall require, as a condition of any transfer of 
property under this section, that the Federal or State agency that 
receives the property shall return the property to the Secretary if the 
agency--
          ``(A) is investigated by the Department of Justice for any 
        violation of civil liberties; or
          ``(B) is otherwise found to have engaged in widespread abuses 
        of civil liberties.
  ``(g) Conditions for Extension of Program.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise 
made available for any fiscal year may not be obligated or expended to 
carry out this section unless the Secretary submits to Congress 
certification that for the preceding fiscal year that--
          ``(1) each Federal or State agency that has received 
        controlled property transferred under this section has--
                  ``(A) demonstrated 100 percent accountability for all 
                such property, in accordance with paragraph (2) or (3), 
                as applicable; or
                  ``(B) been suspended from the program pursuant to 
                paragraph (4);
          ``(2) with respect to each non-Federal agency that has 
        received controlled property under this section, the State 
        coordinator responsible for each such agency has verified that 
        the coordinator or an agent of the coordinator has conducted an 
        in-person inventory of the property transferred to the agency 
        and that 100 percent of such property was accounted for during 
        the inventory or that the agency has been suspended from the 
        program pursuant to paragraph (4);
          ``(3) with respect to each Federal agency that has received 
        controlled property under this section, the Secretary of 
        Defense or an agent of the Secretary has conducted an in-person 
        inventory of the property transferred to the agency and that 
        100 percent of such property was accounted for during the 
        inventory or that the agency has been suspended from the 
        program pursuant to paragraph (4);
          ``(4) the eligibility of any agency that has received 
        controlled property under this section for which 100 percent of 
        the property was not accounted for during an inventory 
        described in paragraph (1) or (2), as applicable, to receive 
        any property transferred under this section has been suspended; 
        and
          ``(5) each State coordinator has certified, for each non-
        Federal agency located in the State for which the State 
        coordinator is responsible that--
                  ``(A) the agency has complied with all requirements 
                under this section; or
                  ``(B) the eligibility of the agency to receive 
                property transferred under this section has been 
                suspended; and
          ``(6) the Secretary of Defense has certified, for each 
        Federal agency that has received property under this section 
        that--
                  ``(A) the agency has complied with all requirements 
                under this section; or
                  ``(B) the eligibility of the agency to receive 
                property transferred under this section has been 
                suspended.
  ``(h) Prohibition on Ownership of Controlled Property.--A Federal or 
State agency that receives controlled property under this section may 
not take ownership of the property.
  ``(i) Notice to Congress of Property Downgrades.--Not later than 30 
days before downgrading the classification of any item of personal 
property from controlled or Federal Supply Class, the Secretary shall 
submit to Congress notice of the proposed downgrade.
  ``(j) Notice to Congress of Property Cannibalization.--Before the 
Defense Logistics Agency authorizes the recipient of property 
transferred under this section to cannibalize the property, the 
Secretary shall submit to Congress notice of such authorization, 
including the name of the recipient requesting the authorization, the 
purpose of the proposed cannibalization, and the type of property 
proposed to be cannibalized.
  ``(k) Quarterly Reports on Use of Controlled Equipment.--Not later 
than 30 days after the last day of a fiscal quarter, the Secretary 
shall submit to Congress a report on any uses of controlled property 
transferred under this section during that fiscal quarter.
  ``(l) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after the last day 
of a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on 
the following for the preceding fiscal year:
          ``(1) The percentage of equipment lost by recipients of 
        property transferred under this section, including specific 
        information about the type of property lost, the monetary value 
        of such property, and the recipient that lost the property.
          ``(2) The transfer of any new (condition code A) property 
        transferred under this section, including specific information 
        about the type of property, the recipient of the property, the 
        monetary value of each item of the property, and the total 
        monetary value of all such property transferred during the 
        fiscal year.''.
          (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
        shall apply with respect to any transfer of property made after 
        the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 366. PUBLIC SAFETY INNOVATION GRANTS.

  (a) Byrne Grants Used for Local Task Forces on Public Safety 
Innovation.--Section 501(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151(a)), as amended by this Act, is 
further amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(3) Local task forces on public safety innovation.--
                  ``(A) In general.--A law enforcement program under 
                paragraph (1)(A) may include the development of best 
                practices for and the creation of local task forces on 
                public safety innovation, charged with exploring and 
                developing new strategies for public safety, including 
                non-law enforcement strategies.
                  ``(B) Definition.--The term `local task force on 
                public safety innovation' means an administrative 
                entity, created from partnerships between community-
                based organizations and other local stakeholders, that 
                may develop innovative law enforcement and non-law 
                enforcement strategies to enhance just and equitable 
                public safety, repair breaches of trust between law 
                enforcement agencies and the community they pledge to 
                serve, and enhance accountability of law enforcement 
                officers.''.
  (b) Crisis Intervention Teams.--Section 501(c) of title I of the 
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10152(c)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(3) In the case of crisis intervention teams funded under 
        subsection (a)(1)(H), a program assessment under this 
        subsection shall contain a report on best practices for crisis 
        intervention.''.
  (c) Use of COPS Grant Program To Hire Law Enforcement Officers Who 
Are Residents of the Communities They Serve.--Section 1701(b) of title 
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 
10381(b)), as amended by this Act, is further amended--
          (1) by redesignating paragraphs (23) and (24) as paragraphs 
        (26) and (27), respectively;
          (2) in paragraph (26), as so redesignated, by striking 
        ``(22)'' and inserting ``(25)''; and
          (3) by inserting after paragraph (22) the following:
          ``(23) to recruit, hire, incentivize, retain, develop, and 
        train new, additional career law enforcement officers or 
        current law enforcement officers who are willing to relocate to 
        communities--
                  ``(A) where there are poor or fragmented 
                relationships between police and residents of the 
                community, or where there are high incidents of crime; 
                and
                  ``(B) that are the communities that the law 
                enforcement officers serve, or that are in close 
                proximity to the communities that the law enforcement 
                officers serve;
          ``(24) to collect data on the number of law enforcement 
        officers who are willing to relocate to the communities where 
        they serve, and whether such law enforcement officer 
        relocations have impacted crime in such communities;
          ``(25) to develop and publicly report strategies and 
        timelines to recruit, hire, promote, retain, develop, and train 
        a diverse and inclusive law enforcement workforce, consistent 
        with merit system principles and applicable law;''.

                Subtitle C--Law Enforcement Body Cameras

          PART 1--FEDERAL POLICE CAMERA AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

SEC. 371. SHORT TITLE.

  This part may be cited as the ``Federal Police Camera and 
Accountability Act''.

SEC. 372. REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS REGARDING 
                    THE USE OF BODY CAMERAS.

  (a) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) Minor.--The term ``minor'' means any individual under 18 
        years of age.
          (2) Subject of the video footage.--The term ``subject of the 
        video footage''--
                  (A) means any identifiable Federal law enforcement 
                officer or any identifiable suspect, victim, detainee, 
                conversant, injured party, or other similarly situated 
                person who appears on the body camera recording; and
                  (B) does not include people who only incidentally 
                appear on the recording.
          (3) Video footage.--The term ``video footage'' means any 
        images or audio recorded by a body camera.
  (b) Requirement to Wear Body Camera.--
          (1) In general.--Federal law enforcement officers shall wear 
        a body camera.
          (2) Requirement for body camera.--A body camera required 
        under paragraph (1) shall--
                  (A) have a field of view at least as broad as the 
                officer's vision; and
                  (B) be worn in a manner that maximizes the camera's 
                ability to capture video footage of the officer's 
                activities.
  (c) Requirement To Activate.--
          (1) In general.--Both the video and audio recording functions 
        of the body camera shall be activated whenever a Federal law 
        enforcement officer is responding to a call for service or at 
        the initiation of any other law enforcement or investigative 
        stop (as such term is defined in section 373) between a Federal 
        law enforcement officer and a member of the public, except that 
        when an immediate threat to the officer's life or safety makes 
        activating the camera impossible or dangerous, the officer 
        shall activate the camera at the first reasonable opportunity 
        to do so.
          (2) Allowable deactivation.--The body camera shall not be 
        deactivated until the stop has fully concluded and the Federal 
        law enforcement officer leaves the scene.
  (d) Notification of Subject of Recording.--A Federal law enforcement 
officer who is wearing a body camera shall notify any subject of the 
recording that he or she is being recorded by a body camera as close to 
the inception of the stop as is reasonably possible.
  (e) Requirements.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), the following 
shall apply to the use of a body camera:
          (1) Prior to entering a private residence without a warrant 
        or in non-exigent circumstances, a Federal law enforcement 
        officer shall ask the occupant if the occupant wants the 
        officer to discontinue use of the officer's body camera. If the 
        occupant responds affirmatively, the Federal law enforcement 
        officer shall immediately discontinue use of the body camera.
          (2) When interacting with an apparent crime victim, a Federal 
        law enforcement officer shall, as soon as practicable, ask the 
        apparent crime victim if the apparent crime victim wants the 
        officer to discontinue use of the officer's body camera. If the 
        apparent crime victim responds affirmatively, the Federal law 
        enforcement officer shall immediately discontinue use of the 
        body camera.
          (3) When interacting with a person seeking to anonymously 
        report a crime or assist in an ongoing law enforcement 
        investigation, a Federal law enforcement officer shall, as soon 
        as practicable, ask the person seeking to remain anonymous, if 
        the person seeking to remain anonymous wants the officer to 
        discontinue use of the officer's body camera. If the person 
        seeking to remain anonymous responds affirmatively, the Federal 
        law enforcement officer shall immediately discontinue use of 
        the body camera.
  (f) Recording of Offers To Discontinue Use of Body Camera.--Each 
offer of a Federal law enforcement officer to discontinue the use of a 
body camera made pursuant to subsection (e), and the responses thereto, 
shall be recorded by the body camera prior to discontinuing use of the 
body camera.
  (g) Limitations on Use of Body Camera.--Body cameras shall not be 
used to gather intelligence information based on First Amendment 
protected speech, associations, or religion, or to record activity that 
is unrelated to a response to a call for service or a law enforcement 
or investigative stop between a law enforcement officer and a member of 
the public, and shall not be equipped with or employ any real time 
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 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 real time facial recognition 
technology, and footage from such a camera or recording device may not 
be subjected to facial recognition technology.

SEC. 375. GAO STUDY.

  Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study on 
Federal law enforcement officer training, vehicle pursuits, use of 
force, and interaction with citizens, and submit a report on such study 
to--
          (1) the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of 
        Representatives and of the Senate;
          (2) the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the House of 
        Representatives; and
          (3) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
        Affairs of the Senate.

SEC. 376. REGULATIONS.

  Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Attorney General shall issue such final regulations as are 
necessary to carry out this part.

SEC. 377. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

  Nothing in this part shall be construed to impose any requirement on 
a Federal law enforcement officer outside of the course of carrying out 
that officer's duty.

                       PART 2--POLICE CAMERA ACT

SEC. 381. SHORT TITLE.

  This part may be cited as the ``Police Creating Accountability by 
Making Effective Recording Available Act of 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--JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF LYNCHING ACT

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

  This title may be cited as the ``Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act''.

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

``250. Lynching.''.

                   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.

                          Purpose and Summary

    On June 10, 2020, George Floyd's brother, Philonise, told 
the Committee of the pain he felt watching the video of his 
brother being killed by a Minneapolis police officer. He gave 
voice to the pain that much of the Nation has felt over the 
last few weeks. He also spoke to the anger of knowing that 
George Floyd was only the latest in a much-too-long list of 
victims of police brutality--disproportionately people of 
color. He spoke to the frustration that, time and again, in the 
face of overwhelming evidence that dramatic reform is urgently 
needed, Congress has done very little. Mr. Floyd charged 
Congress with making sure that his brother's death would not be 
in vain, and he pleaded with Members of the Committee to turn 
this pain and anger into meaningful change. His words echoed 
the voices of millions of Americans who have taken to the 
streets in the last few weeks to demand justice--and to demand 
action. In advancing H.R. 7120, the ``George Floyd Justice in 
Policing Act of 2020,'' the most significant policing reform 
legislation in our Nation's history, the Committee now answers 
their call.
    In response to the American people's demand that Congress 
pass meaningful policing reform legislation, H.R. 7120 contains 
numerous policing reform measures that, if enacted, will 
enhance public safety, ensure police accountability, and repair 
frayed police-community relations. Among other things, the bill 
includes provisions that:
           revise the mens rea requirement in 18 U.S.C. 
        Sec. 242 so that a defendant can be held criminally 
        liable for acting knowingly or recklessly to deprive a 
        person of his or her federal rights;
           eliminate qualified immunity for federal, 
        state, and local law enforcement officers in civil 
        actions for violations of federal rights;
           enhance the Department of Justice's 
        authority to pursue investigations of law enforcement 
        officers and agencies for engaging in a ``pattern or 
        practice'' of violations of federal rights by granting 
        it subpoena authority and further strengthen the 
        statute by creating a cause of action for state 
        attorneys general to pursue such ``pattern or 
        practice'' actions;
           incentivize independent investigations of 
        police uses of deadly force;
           create a national law enforcement misconduct 
        registry;
           establish use of force data reporting 
        requirements;
           prohibit racial and religious profiling by 
        law enforcement officers and mandate training on 
        racial, religious, and discriminatory profiling;
           ban no-knock warrants in drug cases;
           ban the use of chokeholds and carotid holds;
           limit the transfer of military-grade 
        equipment to state and local law enforcement;
           require law enforcement officers to wear 
        body cameras, prohibit the use of facial recognition 
        technology by federal officers and the use of federal 
        funds by states for such technology;
           establish a use-of-force standard for 
        federal law enforcement officers and condition grants 
        for state and local law enforcement agencies on 
        following the same standards, and;
           create public safety innovation grants to 
        foster non-policing innovations that enhance public 
        safety.
    In contrast to President Donald Trump's recent ``Safe 
Policing for Safe Communities''' Executive Order, and the 
Justice Act introduced by Senator Tim Scott, the George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act of 2020 offers real and 
transformational change, rather than a validation of an 
unacceptable status quo. As we have repeatedly stated, we 
remain ready, willing, and able to work with our Republican 
colleagues or the Administration as this bill moves forward in 
the legislative process. Unfortunately, at present, neither of 
those measures offers us a path to bipartisan compromise that 
serve the interests of the American people.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\As Chairman Nadler explained during the markup of H.R. 7120, the 
bill was introduced on June 8, 2020 and, at the time, it was explained 
to the Minority that the Majority had initiated the process by 
developing comprehensive legislation with House and Senate colleagues 
because of the importance of moving quickly given the urgency of the 
moment the Nation was in. Since that time, the Minority was told that 
if it wished to help develop the legislation, it needed to make clear 
to the Majority what changes it wanted and whether those changes would 
lead to the Minority's support for the bill. Chair Bass has reached out 
to the Minority Leader and Senator Tim Scott and Majority staff reached 
out to the Minority in the ten days prior to the markup. Moreover, the 
Minority was permitted to invite three witnesses for the Committee's 
hearing on this issue on June 10, 2020.
      Rather than engage constructively with the Majority, the Minority 
did not share a single amendment with the Majority before the markup or 
otherwise accept the Majority's offers to discuss the bill's substance. 
During the markup, Members of the Minority refused the Majority's offer 
to review and work with them on specific amendments that the Majority 
indicated it could support if there was the opportunity to review and 
discuss before the bill's consideration on the House floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An array of leading civil rights organizations, 15 big-city 
mayors,\2\ members of the business community, and many others, 
has indicated support for H.R. 7120, including the Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Association for 
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), NAACP Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights 
Under Law, National Action Network, National Urban League, 
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the Congressional 
Progressive Caucus, the Center for American Progress, Demand 
Progress, Everytown for Gun Safety, New Democrat Coalition, and 
the United Negro College Fund.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Sylvester Turner (Houston, TX); Eric Garcetti (Los Angeles, CA); 
Jacob Frey (Minneapolis, MN); Jenny A. Durkan (Seattle, WA); Ron 
Nirenberg (San Antonio, TX); London Breed (San Francisco, CA); Michael 
B. Hancock (Denver, CO); Steve Adler (Austin, TX); Libby Schaff 
(Oakland, CA); Ted Wheeler (Portland, OR); Victoria Woodards (Tacoma, 
WA); Satya Rhodes-Conway (Madison, WI); Regina Romero (Tucson, AZ); 
John Cooper (Nashville, TN); and Rusty Bailey (Riverside, CA).
    \3\The other organizations expressing support for H.R. 7120 are 
Adobe, American Association for Justice, American Association of 
Independent Music, Artists Rights Alliance, BBVA USA, Black Millennial 
Convention, Black Music Action Coalition, Fund for Leadership, Equity, 
Access and Diversity, Future of Music Coalition, International Black 
Women's Public Policy Institute, ITI, Little Listeners of the 
Carolinas, Music Artists' Coalition, National Advocacy Center of the 
Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National African American Clergy Network, 
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, National Association of 
Blacks in Criminal Justice, National Organization of Black County 
Officials, Inc., National Association of Black County Officials, 
Recording Industry Association of America, Save a Girl, Save a World, 
Songwriters of North America, The National Coalition on Black Civic 
Participation, Third Way, Tougaloo College, Voice of the Experienced, 
and the YWCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Background and Need for the Legislation


                             I. BACKGROUND

A. The Link Between Race and Concerns About Use of Excessive Force by 
        Police

    In the face of assertions that the Committee is moving too 
quickly to advance H.R. 7120, it is well worth remembering the 
fact that American society has already known for decades of the 
strong connection between race and the use of excessive, often 
lethal force by police and yet has failed to act sufficiently 
in response despite official recommendations. Indeed, in a 
hearing before the Committee just last week, many witnesses--
including those from the law enforcement community--reminded 
the Committee in their testimony that law enforcement in the 
United States has a long, ugly history of institutional racism, 
discrimination, and brutality against African Americans and 
other marginalized groups, a history that continues to shape 
policing in America today.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\See Policing Practices and Law Enforcement Accountability: 
Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (2020) 
[hereinafter ``Policing Practices Hearing''] (written testimony of Art 
Acevedo, Chief of the Houston Police Department and President, Major 
City Chiefs Association, at 3) [hereinafter ``Acevedo Testimony''] 
(stating ``law enforcement's past contains institutional racism, 
injustices, and brutality'' and that ``we must recognize that policing 
has had a disparate impact on disenfranchised communities, especially 
communities of color and poor communities), (written testimony of Paul 
Butler, Albert Brick Professor in Law, Georgetown University Law 
Center, at 2) [hereinafter ``Butler Testimony''] (``there has never, 
not for one minute in American history, been peace between black people 
and the police''), (written testimony of Ronald L. Davis, Chair, 
Legislative Committee, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 
Executives, at 4) [hereinafter ``Davis Testimony''] (stating ``most of 
the systems that determine why we police, how we police, and where we 
police were constructed in the 1940's, '50s, and '60s to enforce Jim 
Crow and other discriminatory laws'' and that policing systems ``still 
suffer from structural racism and institutional deficiencies . . . 
[and] even good cops have bad outcomes, and bad and racist cops operate 
with impunity), (written testimony of Phillip Atiba Goff, Co-Founder 
and Chief Executive Officer, Center for Policing Equity, at 2, 3) 
[hereinafter ``Goff Testimony''] (noting the ``festering wounds of 
racial violence woven into our history of policing'' and stating that 
what limited data is available shows that ``there is no doubt that 
Black, Native, and Latinx people have more contact with law enforcement 
than do White people'' and that ``neither crime nor poverty are 
sufficient to explain racial disparities in use of force, and in some 
limited geographic areas, it is not sufficient to explain racial 
disparities in [police] stops'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More than a half-century ago, in its report on the causes 
of racial unrest in American cities during the 1960's, the 
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, also known as 
the Kerner Commission, wrote (in the language of the time) in 
assessing the causes of the unrest:
    The police are not merely a ``spark'' factor. To some 
Negroes police have come to symbolize white power, white racism 
and white repression. And the fact is that many police do 
reflect and express these white attitudes. The atmosphere of 
hostility and cynicism is reinforced by a widespread belief 
among Negroes in the existence of police brutality and in a 
``double standard'' of justice and protection--one for Negroes 
and one for whites.
    The abrasive relationship between the police and the 
minority communities has been a major--and explosive--source of 
grievance, tension and disorder. The blame must be shared by 
the total society.
    The police are faced with demands for increased protection 
and service in the ghetto. Yet the aggressive patrol practices 
thought necessary to meet these demands themselves create 
tension and hostility.
    The resulting grievances have been further aggravated by 
the lack of effective mechanisms for handling complaints 
against the police. Special programs for bettering police-
community relations have been instituted, but these alone are 
not enough. Police administrators, with the guidance of public 
officials, and the support of the entire community, must take 
vigorous action to improve law enforcement and to decrease the 
potential for disorder.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Report of the Nat'l Advisory Comm'n on Civil Disorders, at 10, 
14-15 (1968) [hereinafter ``Kerner Commission Report''], available at 
http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/docs/kerner.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1947, a generation before the Kerner Commission issued 
its report, a similar commission appointed by President Harry 
Truman to study the state of civil rights in the United States 
issued similar findings about the link between societal racism 
against African Americans and police brutality in its report. 
The report noted that ``There is evidence of lawless police 
action against whites and Negroes alike, but the dominant 
pattern is that of race prejudice . . . Negroes have been shot, 
supposedly in self-defense, under circumstances indicating, at 
best, unsatisfactory police work in the handling of criminals, 
and, at worst, a callous willingness to kill.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\To Secure These Rights: The Report of the President's Commission 
on Civil Rights, at 26 (1947) [hereinafter ``1947 Report''], available 
at https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/to-secure-these-rights; see 
also Adam Harris, Racism Won't Be Solved By Yet Another Blue-Ribbon 
Commission, The Atlantic, June 4, 2020, available at https://
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/george-floyd-racism-
police-brutality/612565/ (quoting the 1947 commission report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sadly, continued killings of unarmed African Americans by 
police in recent years appear to have highlighted how little 
progress has been made to address the problem of police 
violence against racial minorities, and, more generally, of 
tensions between police and minority communities, despite 
decades of official findings identifying the problem. The 
United States is currently in the sixth year of its most recent 
national conversation around policing practices that was 
sparked by several high-profile, fatal applications of force 
against unarmed African Americans, a national discourse that 
has been given renewed momentum by a series of such killings in 
recent months.
    On December 18, 2014, then-President Barack Obama issued 
Executive Order 13684 authorizing a task force to study law 
enforcement practices. The mission of the President's Task 
Force on 21st Century Policing (the President's Task Force) was 
to examine ways of fostering strong, collaborative 
relationships between local law enforcement and the communities 
they protect and to make recommendations so that policing 
practices can promote effective crime reduction while building 
public trust.\7\ The President's Task Force conducted seven 
listening sessions in three cities, solicited oral and written 
testimony from over 250 different witnesses and experts, and 
issued its final report in May 2015 (The President's Task Force 
Report). In the years that followed, a growing, bipartisan 
consensus emerged on several policing and criminal justice 
reforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Off. of Cmty. Oriented Policing Serv., Dep't of Just., The 
President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Final Report 5 (2015) 
[hereinafter ``The President's Task Force''], available at https://
cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2018, the United States Commission on Civil Rights 
(USCCR) examined the use of force within the context of modern 
policing practices in light of the series of fatal encounters 
between unarmed African Americans and police beginning in 2014. 
It found that:
           Accurate and comprehensive data regarding 
        police uses of force is generally not available to 
        police departments or the American public.
           No comprehensive national database exists 
        that captures rates of police use of force.
           The lack of data on use of force is 
        exacerbated by the absence of mandatory federal 
        reporting and standardized reporting guidelines.
           The best available evidence reflects high 
        rates of use of force nationally, and increased 
        likelihood of police use of force against people of 
        color, people with disabilities, LGBTQ people, people 
        with mental health concerns, people with low incomes, 
        and those at the intersections of those groups.
           Law enforcement officers lack training on 
        critical areas such as de-escalation techniques, anti-
        bias mechanisms, and strategies for encounters with 
        individuals with physical and mental disabilities.
           Law enforcement agencies lack: (a) 
        transparency about policies and practices in place 
        governing use of force and (b) accountability for 
        noncompliance with any existing use of force policies 
        and procedures.
           Communities perceive that police use of 
        force is unchecked and unlawful based on: (a) repeated 
        and highly publicized fatal applications of force 
        against unarmed civilians, (b) the lack of accurate 
        data on use of force, and (c) the lack of transparency 
        and accountability regarding policies and practices 
        governing use of force.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\U.S. Comm'n on Civ. Rts., Police Use of Force: An Examination of 
Modern Policing Practices 4 (2018) [hereinafter ``USCCR Report''], 
available at https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/11-15-Police-Force.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All the foregoing entities made a series of recommendations 
for policymakers, many of which are, in some form, reflected in 
H.R. 7120. For example, among The President's Task Force's 
recommendations were: (1) clear use of force policies that 
include de-escalation training; (2) policies to prohibit racial 
profiling; (3) independent investigations of officer-involved 
shootings, uses of force, and in-custody deaths; (4) collection 
and public availability of demographic data regarding police 
interactions; and (5) the incentivization of the establishment 
of public safety innovation programs to help improve police 
relations with minority communities.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\The President's Task Force at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 2018 USCCR report also outlined a number of 
recommendations, including: (1) a return by the Department of 
Justice (DOJ) to vigorous pursuit of cases against local police 
departments for engaging in a ``pattern or practice'' of 
unconstitutional conduct and use consent decrees in such cases 
as necessary; (2) the creation of federal guidance supporting 
development of effective training, policies, and internal 
accountability measures that promote expanded strategies and 
tactics that safeguard the lives of officers and citizens; (3) 
training for officers regarding de-escalation techniques and 
alternatives to use of force; (4) independent investigation and 
prosecution of police use-of-force cases; and (5) aggregation 
and public dissemination of data by police departments 
regarding use of force, disaggregated by race, gender, and 
disability status.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\USCCR Report at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Going further back, the Kerner Commission had recommended, 
among other things, that cities ``review police operations in 
the ghetto to ensure proper conduct by police officers, and 
eliminate abrasive practices''; ``establish fair and effective 
mechanisms for the redress of grievances against the police''; 
``develop and adopt policy guidelines to assist officers in 
making critical decisions in areas where police conduct can 
create tension''; ``develop and use innovative programs to 
ensure widespread community support for law enforcement;'' and 
``recruit more Negroes into the regular police force.''\11\ The 
1947 Truman-appointed civil rights commission's report 
recommended that ``police training programs . . . should be 
instituted. They should be oriented so as to indoctrinate 
officers with an awareness of civil rights problems. Proper 
treatment by the police of those who are arrested and 
incarcerated in local jails should be stressed.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Kerner Commission Report at 15.
    \12\1947 Report at 157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While there has been some progress, police-community 
relations remain fraught, particularly in light of more recent 
incidents of police killings of unarmed African Americans. On 
October 28, 2019, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 
13896, establishing a Commission on Law Enforcement and the 
Administration of Justice, authorizing Attorney General William 
Barr to select a commission of experts to study crime, its 
causal factors, and current law enforcement practices.\13\ 
President Trump authorized the Commission to study criminal 
justice issues, such as refusals by state and local prosecutors 
to enforce laws or prosecute categories of crimes, as well as a 
perceived disrespect for law enforcement. In remarks about the 
Commission, Attorney General Barr pointedly lamented ``a 
disturbing pattern of cynicism and disrespect shown toward law 
enforcement.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\The Barr Commission has been accused of lacking transparency. 
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed suit to challenge 
the legality of the Commission and alleged that the Commission has 
failed to comply with the requirements of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act. See NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., LDF 
Files Lawsuit Challenging the President's Law Enforcement Commission, 
Arguing that it Fails to Comply with Federal Advisory Committee Act 
Requirements, April 30, 2020, available at https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-
content/uploads/FACA-Suit-Statement-FINAL.pdf.
    \14\Dep't of Justice, Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers 
Remarks at the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the 
Administration of Justice Opening Ceremony, Jan. 22, 2020, available at 
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-
delivers-remarks-presidential-commission-law-enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 2014, the annual rate of fatal police-involved 
shootings nationwide has remained steady--averaging nearly 1000 
per year.\15\ Meanwhile, in 2020, four more high profile 
killings of unarmed African Americans under color of law have 
reignited the public outrage that had been steadily building 
for years. Protests in Minneapolis, MN and in cities nationwide 
morphed for a time into physical expressions of rage and 
despair, and many peaceful protests against police abuses 
continue nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Julie Tate, Jennifer Jenkins & Steven Rich, Fatal Force, Wash. 
Post, May 26, 2020, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/
graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Killings Since 2014 of African-Americans in Police Custody and 
        Movement for Police Accountability and Transparency

    A series of deaths of unarmed African-American men while in 
police custody accompanied by public unrest in Ferguson, MO and 
Baltimore, MD, sparked a movement in the United States to 
demand transparency and accountability when police use force 
against civilians:
           July 17, 2014: Eric Garner was choked to 
        death by police in New York, NY.
           August 9, 2014: Michael Brown was shot to 
        death by police in Ferguson, MO.
           August 9-25, 2014: Residents of Ferguson, MO 
        publicly protested the shooting of Michael Brown and 
        the protests escalated into a series of riots.
           October 20, 2014: LaQuan McDonald was shot 
        to death by police in Chicago, IL.
           November 22, 2014: Tamir Rice, aged 12, was 
        shot to death by police in Cleveland, OH.
           April 5, 2015, Walter Scott was shot to 
        death by police in North Charleston, SC.
           April 18, 2015 Freddie Gray died of a spinal 
        cord injury suffered while he was in police custody in 
        Baltimore, MD.
           April 18-April 29, 2015: Baltimore residents 
        began non-violent protests; however the protests 
        escalated into violence.
           July 5, 2016: Alton Sterling was shot by 
        Baton Rouge, LA, police and, while no officer was 
        criminally charged, one officer was fired.
           July 7, 2016: Philando Castile was shot in 
        his car by a police officer outside St. Paul, MN; the 
        officer involved was tried and acquitted of second-
        degree manslaughter.
           September 16, 2016: Terence Crutcher was 
        shot by police outside his car in Tulsa, OK; the 
        officer involved was tried and acquitted of 
        manslaughter.
           April 29, 2017: Jordan Edwards was shot by 
        police while sitting in the passenger seat of a car in 
        Balch Springs, TX; the officer involved was convicted 
        of murder.
    The public outrage over these incidents, most of which were 
captured on video, once again catapulted decades of mistrust 
between police and marginalized communities into the national 
political discourse. Initially inspired by the Black Lives 
Matter movement, which was formed in response to the Stand Your 
Ground laws utilized to justify the 2012 murders of two unarmed 
African-American teenagers, Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis, 
the public outcry over the extrajudicial killings of unarmed 
civilians continued to grow as protests by professional 
athletes in the National Football League and the National 
Basketball Association, as well as comments from President 
Obama supplemented grassroots calls for reform.
    Amid the ongoing debate around policing practices since the 
protests stemming from the killings of Michael Brown, Eric 
Garner, Freddie Gray, and others, violent confrontations 
between police and civilians continued. On March 18, 2018, 
Sacramento Police fired 20 shots killing Stephon Clark, a 22-
year-old African American who had fled into his own backyard, 
mistaking the cellphone he was holding for a gun. The shooting 
was captured on video. The officers were not charged with any 
criminal offenses, and a federal civil rights investigation 
remains ongoing.
    On June 19, 2018, unarmed African American teenager Antwon 
Rose II, 17, was shot three times in the back, face, and elbow 
while fleeing from East Pittsburgh Police Officer Michael 
Rosefeld after a traffic stop.\16\ The shooting was captured on 
video. On March 22, 2019, Rosefeld was acquitted of criminal 
homicide for Rose's death.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\Adeel Hassan, Antwon Rose Shooting: White Police Officer 
Acquitted in Death of Black Teenager, N.Y. Times, Mar. 22, 2019, 
available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/22/us/antwon-rose-
shooting.html.
    \17\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 26, 2019, a Baltimore County police officer 
fatally shot Eric Sopp during a traffic stop after Sopp refused 
to obey their commands to remain inside his vehicle. Baltimore 
County prosecutors determined that the shooting was justified 
because Sopp's erratic behavior placed the officer in a highly 
dangerous situation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Tom Jackman, Baltimore County police officer cleared in killing 
of unarmed, suicidal man, Wash. Post, Mar. 2, 2020, available at 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/crime-law/2020/03/02/baltimore-county-
police-officer-cleared-killing-unarmed-suicidal-man/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 27, 2020, Prince George's County Police Corporal 
Michael Owen fired seven shots, killing William Green while 
Green was handcuffed and seated in his car. Owen was charged 
with voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, first-degree 
assault and use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of 
violence and awaits trial.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\Neil Vigdor, Mariel Padilla and Sandra E. Garcia, Police 
Officer Charged With Murder in Killing of Handcuffed Suspect in 
Maryland, N.Y. Times, Jan. 28, 2020, available at https://
www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/us/prince-georges-maryland-police-
shooting.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On February 23, 2020, Travis and Gregory McMichael killed 
Ahmaud Arbery while he was jogging, purportedly because they 
suspected him of committing a burglary. The killing of Mr. 
Arbery and its subsequent investigation are reminiscent of 
early 20th century lynchings in the Jim Crow South. Gregory 
McMichael was a former police officer and investigator with the 
Glynn County Police Department and Brunswick Judicial Circuit, 
the entities responsible for investigating the killing. The 
killing was captured on video, yet law enforcement refused to 
arrest the McMichaels for 74 days--until the video was leaked 
to the public on May 7, 2020. Gregory McMichael's status as a 
former law enforcement officer, in addition to his relationship 
with prosecutors responsible for investigating Mr. Arbery's 
killing, raise questions as to whether some combination of 
racial bias, conflicts of interest, or gross negligence led to 
Mr. Arbery's death and compromised the integrity of the 
subsequent investigation.
    In the early morning hours of March 13, 2020, Breonna 
Taylor was shot eight times and killed by Louisville Metro 
Police Department (LMPD) Criminal Interdiction Division 
officers executing a ``no-knock'' search warrant on her 
apartment during the early morning hours of March 13, 2020. 
Apparently, the subject of the warrant was already in police 
custody prior to LMPD officers arriving at Ms. Taylor's 
apartment. Upon arrival, the officers, who were in plain 
clothes, did not knock and did not identify themselves as 
police.\20\ Ms. Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, a licensed 
gun owner, used his firearm to defend the home against what he 
believed to be an attempted burglary.\21\ The officers fired a 
hail of bullets into the apartment, over twenty rounds, 
striking Ms. Taylor eight times and killing her.\22\ The 
officers were not wearing body cameras.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Complaint at 7, Palmer v. Hankison, No. 20-CI-002694 (Jefferson 
Cnty. Cir. Ct. Apr. 27, 2020).
    \21\Id. at 3, 10.
    \22\Id. at 9.
    \23\Nick Picht, LMPD officers serving warrant at Breonna Taylor's 
home were not wearing body cameras, WAVE 3 News, May 16, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was killed when Minneapolis 
Police Department (MPD) officers applied an illegal chokehold 
to his neck while he was handcuffed and pinned to the ground. 
The killing, captured on video, is the latest in a string of 
high profile and outrageous extrajudicial killings of African 
Americans suspected of committing minor criminal violations and 
is eerily reminiscent of the NYPD killing of Eric Garner. The 
nine-minute video appears to show an officer kneeling on Mr. 
Floyd's neck as he begs for help, stating repeatedly that he 
could not breathe.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\FBI investigating after man dies in Minneapolis Police custody; 
video shows him saying ``I can't breathe,'' KARE11, May 26, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MPD officers claim that Mr. Floyd was resisting their 
attempts to arrest him for forgery--a non-violent offense.\25\ 
Newly released video appears to contradict that claim.\26\ As 
the officer applied the force of his full body weight on top of 
Mr. Floyd with a knee to the neck, bystanders called for 
officers to reduce the amount of force being applied.\27\ 
``He's not even resisting arrest right now, bro,'' one 
bystander tells the officer and his partner.\28\ One bystander 
observed that the officer was cutting off Mr. Floyd's air 
supply: ``You're . . . stopping his breathing right now, you 
think that's cool?''\29\ After about five minutes into the 
video, Mr. Floyd appears to go unconscious.\30\ Police then 
called an ambulance which took Mr. Floyd to the Hennepin County 
Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\``Being Black in America Should Not Be A Death Sentence'': 
Officials Respond to George Floyd's Death, WCCO CBS Minnesota, May 26, 
2020.
    \26\Dakin Andone, Surveillance video does not support police claims 
that George Floyd resisted arrest, CNN, May 28, 2020.
    \27\Id.
    \28\Id.
    \29\Id.
    \30\WCCO CBS Minnesota.
    \31\KARE11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Burden on Law Enforcement

    As the spotlight on high-profile applications of fatal 
force by police has intensified, some members of the law 
enforcement profession have felt abused, disrespected, and 
underappreciated given the personal sacrifices they make to 
perform a dangerous job that often involves split-second life 
or death decisions. The job of a patrol officer can be deadly. 
In 2014, New York Police Department (NYPD) officers Wenjian Liu 
and Raphael Ramos were shot and killed execution-style while 
sitting in their patrol car. In 2016, 20 law enforcement 
officers died in planned assaults carried out by gunmen--the 
highest number in a least a decade-- including in high-profile 
attacks against police in Dallas and Baton Rouge that occurred 
ten days apart.\32\ And on February 9, 2020, NYPD Officer Paul 
Stroffolino was ambushed while sitting in his marked unit and 
shot in the head. Officer Stroffolino was expected to survive. 
Hours later, Officer Stroffolino's assailant entered the 41st 
Precinct in the Bronx and emptied the entire clip of a 9mm 
handgun, striking a lieutenant in the upper left arm. The 
assailant has been charged with several counts of attempted 
murder and awaits trial. While planned attacks on officers are 
relatively rare, officers must face the most dangerous 
encounters as a matter of routine: traffic stops, serving 
warrants, and responding to domestic violence calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\Ann Givens, Ambush Shootings of Police Officers Reach Highest 
Total in Decades, The Trace, Dec. 6, 2016, available at https://
www.thetrace.org/2016/12/ambush-shootings-police-officers-reaches-
highest-total-decades/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The public scrutiny and violent attacks have led some to 
believe that there is a ``war on cops'' and that in response, 
police have begun to pull back in their enforcement duties--a 
phenomenon labelled as ``the Ferguson effect.''\33\ Fewer 
people are seeking careers in policing, as a majority of police 
chiefs surveyed said hiring had become more difficult, with 
two-thirds reporting difficulty finding nonwhite officers.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\See Mitch Smith, Policing: What Changed (and Didn't) Since 
Michael Brown Died, N.Y. Times, Aug. 7, 2019, available at https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/08/07/us/racism-ferguson.html.
    \34\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        II. NEED FOR LEGISLATION

A. Post-Incident Accountability Measures

            1. ``Pattern or Practice'' Enforcement Actions Under 34 
                    U.S.C. Sec. 12601
    H.R. 7120 makes it easier in several ways to more 
effectively enforce 34 U.S.C. Sec. 12601, which authorizes the 
DOJ to pursue civil suits for equitable and declaratory relief 
against individual officers or police departments to stop them 
from engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving persons of 
their constitutional or other federal rights.\35\ To prevail, 
DOJ must prove that a law enforcement agency engaged in such 
conduct by a preponderance of evidence. The pattern or practice 
of excessive use of force has been found in the past to have 
been one type of conduct prohibited by the statute.\36\ The DOJ 
is currently the only government agency authorized to eliminate 
unconstitutional patterns and practices under the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\34 U.S.C.Sec. 12601 was previously codified as 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 14141.
    \36\See, e.g., Dep't of Just., Investigation of the New Orleans 
Police Department, Mar. 16, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Using its Section 12601 authority, the DOJ had in years 
past investigated a substantial number of police departments 
around the country engaged in a variety of constitutional 
violations. The Obama Administration, for example, launched 25 
such investigations.\37\ Three factors typically triggered 
federal investigations: (1) the development of a significant 
body of complaints by stakeholder groups that create an 
inference of a pattern of constitutional violations; (2) 
voluntary requests by elected officials or agency management 
for a review of agency practices and technical support to 
improve policies and procedures; and (3) high visibility 
episodes of police misconduct accompanied by substantial proof 
such as a video recording.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\Policing Practices Hearing (written testimony of Vanita Gupta, 
President and Chief Executive Officer, Leadership Conference on Civil 
and Human Rights, at 2) [hereinafter ``Gupta Testimony''].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The DOJ typically sought to enjoin patterns or practices of 
unconstitutional conduct through judicially enforceable consent 
decrees or court orders that required the local law enforcement 
agency to end the misconduct at issue and change the policies 
and procedures that led to the violations. Examples of required 
policy changes included early intervention systems to monitor 
and intervene with officers at risk of serious misconduct, or 
more open administrative complaint procedures. Where violations 
were widespread and substantial, a consent decree and 
memorandum of agreement provided essential assurance that the 
reform effort would be monitored and enforced.
    Relief secured by DOJ pursuant to its Section 12601 
authority can have broad and lasting effects that encourage 
policing practices that reduce the risk of unconstitutional 
police-civilian encounters and build trust between law 
enforcement and the community. Section 12601 relief supports 
that goal by articulating best practices and demonstrating how 
to apply them while providing enforcement mechanisms which 
incentivize reform.
    Unfortunately, under the Trump Administration, the DOJ has 
largely abdicated its responsibility to use its Section 12601 
authority to address police abuses. As an early priority during 
his tenure, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed the DOJ's 
policy of pursuing consent decrees to resolve policing 
practices investigations. Within a month of his appointment, 
Attorney General Sessions ordered a review of the use of 
consent decrees to ensure that they advanced the safety and 
protection of the public.\38\ He further asserted that consent 
decrees ``reduce morale'' among police officers and had the 
effect of increasing violent crime.\39\ These principles were 
memorialized in a memorandum dated March 31, 2017 (the March 
2017 Memo).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\Sheryl Gay Stolberg & Eric Lichtblau, Sweeping Federal Review 
Could Affect Consent Decrees Nationwide, N.Y. Times, Apr. 3, 2017, 
available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/us/justice-department-
jeff-sessions-baltimore-police.html.
    \39\Katie Benner, Sessions, in Last-Minute Act, Sharply Limits Use 
of Consent Decrees to Curb Police Abuses, N.Y. Times, Nov. 8, 2018, 
available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/us/politics/sessions-
limits-consent-decrees.html.
    \40\Memorandum for Heads of Department Components and United States 
Attorneys, March 31, 2017, available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/
press-release/file/954916/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In April 2017, the DOJ changed its position in a settlement 
agreement it had entered into with the Baltimore Police 
Department during the Obama Administration. It filed a document 
in the district court seeking more time to ``assess whether and 
how the provisions of the proposed consent decrees interact'' 
with the principles outlined in the March 2017 Memo.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\Motion for Continuance of Public Fairness Hearing, USA v. 
Police Department of Baltimore City, No. 1:17-cv-00099-JKB, (D. Md. 
Apr. 3, 2017), ECF No. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The DOJ continued its non-decree policy in two notable 
investigations of Louisiana law enforcement agencies that were 
engaging in systemic abuses of constitutional rights. In 
December 2016, the Obama DOJ investigated the Ville Platte 
Police Department and Evangeline Parish Sheriff's Office in 
Louisiana and found that the agencies routinely arrested and 
detained individuals without probable cause.\42\ In June 2018, 
the DOJ settled the cases out of court without a judicially 
enforceable consent decree and without community input.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\Department of Justice Investigation of the Ville Platte Police 
Department and the Evangeline Parish Sheriff's Office, December 19, 
2016.
    \43\Ian MacDougall, How the Trump Administration Went Easy on 
Small-Town Police Abuses, Pro Publica, Aug. 27, 2018, available at 
https://www.propublica.org/article/ville-platte-louisiana-police-
consent-decree-trump-justice-department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In October 2018, DOJ intervened in the State of Illinois' 
lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department (CPD), opposing a 
settlement even after the Obama Justice Department found 
rampant use of excessive force aimed at black and Latino 
individuals.\44\ Finally, in November 2018, just prior to his 
resignation, Attorney General Sessions issued a second 
memorandum (the November 2018 Memo) making it more difficult 
for DOJ officials to obtain court-enforced agreements to stop 
civil rights abuses by local police departments.\45\ The 
November 2018 Memo imposed three stringent requirements that 
will make it harder to negotiate and enforce consent decrees:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\Katie Benner, Sessions, in Last-Minute Act, Sharply Limits Use 
of Consent Decrees to Curb Police Abuses, N.Y. Times, Nov. 8, 2018, 
available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/us/politics/sessions-
limits-consent-decrees.html; see also United States' Statement of 
Interest Opposing Proposed Consent Decree, Illinois v. Chicago, No. 17-
cv-06260 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2018), ECF No. 160.
    \45\Memorandum for Heads of Civil Litigation Components, United 
States Attorneys, Nov. 7, 2018, available at https://www.justice.gov/
opa/press-release/file/1109681/download; Christy E. Lopez, Here's Why 
Jeff Session's Parting Shot is Worse Than You Thought, The Marshall 
Project, Nov. 19, 2018, available at https://
www.themarshallproject.org/2018/11/19/here-s-why-jeff-sessions-parting-
shot-is-worse-than-you-thought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           DOJ lawyers must now provide evidence of 
        violations beyond unconstitutional behavior;
           Consent decrees must have an identified 
        sunset date, as opposed to being allowed to stay in 
        place until the unlawful practices are 
        remedied;Career DOJ lawyers can no longer 
        approve consent decrees; approval from top political 
        appointees is now required.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\Katie Benner, Sessions, in Last-Minute Act, Sharply Limits Use 
of Consent Decrees to Curb Police Abuses, N.Y. Times, Nov. 8, 2018, 
available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/08/us/politics/sessions-
limits-consent-decrees.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Several witnesses raised concerns about the Trump 
Administration's failure to use its authority under Section 
12601 at the Committee's hearing on policing practices. Vanita 
Gupta, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Leadership 
Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR) and the former 
Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights during the 
Obama Administration, testified that the current Administration 
had severely curtailed the DOJ's use of consent decrees to 
address police civil rights abuse.\47\ Similarly, Sherrilyn 
Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal 
Defense and Educational Fund, testified that the ``Trump 
Administration has abdicated its authority to investigate 
police departments and instead has incited unlawful 
policing.''\48\ Ronald Davis, Chair of the Legislative 
Committee for the National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), also proposed rescinding the 
Session memo pertaining to consent decrees.\49\ The 2018 USCCR 
report recommended, among other things, that the DOJ return to 
vigorous pursuit of cases against local police departments for 
engaging in a ``pattern or practice'' of unconstitutional 
conduct and use consent decrees in such cases as necessary.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\Gupta Testimony at 3.
    \48\Policing Practices Hearing (written testimony of Sherrilyn 
Ifill, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, at 3) [hereinafter ``Ifill Testimony''].
    \49\Davis Testimony at 8.
    \50\USCCR Report at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 7120 strengthens the investigatory and enforcement 
mechanisms of Section 12601 in a number of ways. First, it 
grants the DOJ the authority to issue subpoenas in ``pattern or 
practice'' investigations of local law enforcement entities to 
compel the production of relevant information or documents in 
an investigation.\51\ Obtaining such materials is critical to 
establishing the breadth of unconstitutional practices. Second, 
to provide an additional means of enforcement, it creates a 
cause of action allowing state attorneys general to pursue 
``pattern or practice'' enforcement actions in federal court so 
that authority to pursue such actions would no longer be 
exclusively held by the DOJ.\52\ Third, it expressly affirms 
the existing understanding and practice under Section 12601 
that prosecutors are among those law enforcement officials 
subject to the statute's prohibition on engaging in a ``pattern 
or practice'' of conduct that deprives individuals of their 
constitutional or civil rights.\53\ Finally, it authorizes 
appropriations for additional expenses related to the 
enforcement of Section 12601.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\H.R. 7120, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020 
(116th Cong. 2020), Sec. 103(a)(3).
    \52\Id.
    \53\Id. For instance, the DOJ investigated the Missoula County (MT) 
Attorney's Office for allegations of gender bias in its handling of 
sexual assault cases. See Letter from Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Ass't 
Attn'y General et al to Fred Van Valkenburg, County Attorney, Missoula 
County, MT, Feb. 14, 2014 available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/
default/files/crt/legacy/2014/02/19/missoula_ltr_2-14-14.pdf. See also 
Memorandum of Understanding Between the Montana Attorney General, the 
Missoula County Attorney's Office, Missoula County, and the Dep't of 
Justice, available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/
legacy/2014/06/10/missoula_settle_6-10-14.pdf (outlining terms of 
settlement ending DOJ ``pattern or practice'' investigation of Missoula 
County Attorney's Office).
    \54\Id. Sec. 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            2. Federal Criminal Enforcement Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 
                    Sec. 242
    H.R. 7120 also strengthens an important criminal 
enforcement tool against police officers who violate a person's 
constitutional or civil rights. Among the criminal enforcement 
tools available to the DOJ to punish law enforcement officers 
that apply improper or excessive amounts of force against 
civilians is 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242. Section 242 prohibits the 
willful deprivation of a person's federal civil or 
constitutional rights while acting under the color of law.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\18 U.S.C. Sec. 242.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 242 is a specific intent crime.\56\ To sustain a 
conviction, the Justice Department must prove beyond a 
reasonable doubt that the defendant: (1) acted under color of 
law; (2) deprived an individual of a constitutional right; and 
(3) acted willfully.\57\ To establish the third element, that a 
defendant acted ``willfully,'' the government must demonstrate 
that the defendant intended to commit an act that results in a 
constitutional deprivation.\58\ In the excessive force context, 
this means the government must prove that the defendant 
intentionally applied an amount of force that he or she knew 
was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.\59\ This 
required showing of willful intent on the defendant's part 
effectively makes prosecution of police officers who commit 
civil rights violations through their use of excessive force 
very difficult, if not impossible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\United States v. Proano, 912 F.3d 431, 442 (7th Cir. 2019).
    \57\The second element requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt 
that the defendant deprived the victim of their right to be free from 
excessive applications of force. The Supreme Court, in Graham v. 
Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989), held that all applications of 
force by government agents prior to or during arrest must be governed 
by the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits ``unreasonable searches and 
seizures.'' The reasonableness of a particular application of force is 
judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene in 
light of the totality of facts and circumstances confronting them at 
the moment force was applied.
    \58\Proano at 442 (quoting United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d 762, 
770 (7th Cir. 1999).
    \59\Proano at 442-443.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 7120 addresses the concern that the required showing 
of willfulness is too high a burden for prosecutors to meet by 
modifying the required showing of intent under Section 242. 
Under the bill, the government would only need to prove that an 
officer acted ``knowingly or recklessly'' in depriving a person 
of his or her constitutional rights.\60\ At the hearing before 
the Committee, several witnesses, including Ronald Davis of 
NOBLE and Ms. Gupta of LCCHR, testified in favor of this 
change.\61\ In addition, the bill would eliminate the death 
penalty from Section 242 and clarify that any act that was a 
substantial factor contributing to death of a person is 
considered an act resulting in death, subjecting the defendant 
to the strongest penalties under the statute.\62\ Finally, the 
bill authorizes appropriations for additional expenses related 
to the enforcement of Section 242.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\H.R. 7120, Sec. 101(1).
    \61\Davis Testimony at 6; Gupta Testimony at 6.
    \62\H.R. 7120, Sec. Sec. 101(2) & 101(3).
    \63\Id. Sec. 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            3. Civil Action for Deprivation of Constitutional Rights
    The civil counterpart to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242 is 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1983, which authorizes a civil action against any ``person 
who, under color of'' state law, ``subjects, or causes to be 
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person 
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of'' federal 
rights.\64\ The law was first enacted during Reconstruction to 
combat systematic violence and abuse against African 
Americans.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. A more limited cause of action is 
available against federal officers pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 
Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
    \65\See An Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for Other 
Purposes, ch. 22, Sec. 1, 17 Stat. 13 (1871).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The text of Section 1983 contains no mention of official 
``immunities'' or other defenses available to officers who are 
sued. However, over the past several decades, the Supreme Court 
has constructed a doctrine known as ``qualified immunity.'' 
Qualified immunity shields officers from liability ``unless 
they have `violated a statutory or constitutional right that 
was clearly established at the time of the challenged 
conduct.'''\66\ Thus, courts can (and often do) hold that an 
official's conduct violated the Constitution but that the 
plaintiff is nonetheless barred from recovering damages. The 
Supreme Court has described qualified immunity as an ``exacting 
standard''\67\ that ``protects `all but the plainly incompetent 
or those who knowingly violate the law.''' \68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\City and Cnty of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765, 
1774 (2015) (quoting Plumhoff v. Pickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014)) 
(additional internal quotations omitted).
    \67\Id.
    \68\Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011)) (quoting Malley 
v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the context of excessive force claims against police 
officers, qualified immunity has frequently barred victims of 
civil rights abuses from recovering in court. Even before 
qualified immunity is applied, a plaintiff alleging excessive 
force must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, 
that the officer caused injury or death to the victim by 
applying more force than ``objectively reasonable'' under the 
circumstances.\69\ This reasonableness test ``requires careful 
attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular 
case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the 
suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers 
or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or 
attempting to evade arrest by flight.''\70\ Qualified immunity 
imposes an additional and nearly insurmountable barrier: it 
requires the plaintiff to show that prior case law from an 
appellate court or the Supreme Court has already established 
that nearly identical conduct in nearly identical circumstances 
is unlawful.\71\ For example, the Supreme Court recently denied 
review in a case holding that an officer who shot a child while 
aiming for a family dog--who posed no evident threat--was 
protected by qualified immunity, because no prior case law 
provided sufficiently ```obvious clarity' to the unique and 
unfortunate circumstances'' of the case.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\Graham, 490 U.S. at 397 (1989).
    \70\Id. at 396.
    \71\See, Ifill Testimony at 4-5; e.g., Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 
1148 (2018) (per curiam); Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (per 
curiam).
    \72\Corbitt v. Vickers, 929 F.3d 1304, 1316-17 (11th Cir. 2019), 
cert denied, No. 19-679, 2020 WL 3146693 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Qualified immunity has faced considerable criticism from a 
broad range of scholars,\73\ practitioners,\74\ civil rights 
advocates,\75\ and even judges and Justices.\76\ As Sherrilyn 
Ifill, Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, explained in her testimony before the 
Committee, qualified immunity ``has been interpreted by courts 
so expansively that it now provides near-impunity for police 
officers who engage in unconstitutional acts of violence.''\77\ 
Section 102 of H.R. 7120 addresses the particular obstacles 
that qualified immunity imposes in civil rights suits against 
law enforcement officials. It expressly bars the defense of 
qualified immunity in Section 1983 suits against state and 
local law enforcement officers by prohibiting defenses based on 
the ``good faith'' of the official or on the purported absence 
of ``clearly established'' law.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\See, e.g., William Baude, Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?, 106 
Cal. L. Rev. 45 (2018); David Rudovsky, The Qualified Immunity Doctrine 
in the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism and the Restriction of 
Constitutional Rights, 138 U. Pa. L. Rev. 23 (1989).
    \74\See, e.g., Policing Practices Hearing (written testimony of 
Benjamin Crump, at 1-2) [hereinafter ``Crump Testimony''].
    \75\See, e.g., Ifill Testimony at 4-5; Gupta Testimony at 6; Letter 
from Clark Neily, Vice President of Criminal Justice, Cato Institute, 
to Members of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary (June 16, 2020).
    \76\See, e.g., Baxter v. Bracey, No. 18-1287, 2020 WL 3146701, at 
*1 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari and 
observing that ``our Sec. 1983 qualified immunity doctrine appears to 
stray from the statutory text''); Jon. O. Newman, Here's a Better Way 
to Punish the Police: Sue Them for Money, Wash. Post (June 23, 2016).
    \77\Ifill Testimony at 4.
    \78\The ``good faith'' defense reflects an earlier iteration of 
qualified immunity doctrine in which the courts assessed whether the 
defendant subjectively believed his or her conduct was lawful. See, 
e.g., Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 102 also prohibits such defenses in suits against 
federal law enforcement officers. Although no federal statute 
expressly provides a right of action to seek damages against 
federal officials for violations of the plaintiff's 
constitutional rights, the Supreme Court in Bivens v. Six 
Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics 
recognized that individuals may pursue such actions in certain 
circumstances.\79\ In order to further ensure that federal 
officials are subject to the same accountability as their state 
and local counterparts, the Committee may also consider 
legislation in the future to expressly codify Bivens. In the 
meantime, Section 102 reflects the Committee's understanding 
that Bivens remains good law and that qualified immunity should 
not shield federal law enforcement officials in Bivens suits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \79\403 U.S. 388.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although some have contended that eliminating qualified 
immunity would unfairly subject police officers to liability 
and could thereby harm police recruitment or cause officers to 
hesitate in performing their functions, the Committee finds 
these arguments unpersuasive. First, as an exhaustive study of 
police indemnification policies has demonstrated, police 
officers are almost never personally required to pay damages in 
civil rights suits.\80\ Those costs are instead borne by the 
officers' employers. The elimination of qualified immunity will 
thus create appropriate incentives for cities and police 
departments to minimize instances of police brutality through 
proper training and disciplinary mechanisms. Second, even 
without the defense of qualified immunity, the existing 
``objective reasonableness'' standard applied in excessive 
force cases already requires an intensive examination of ``the 
facts and circumstances of each particular case.''\81\ The 
elimination of qualified immunity does not alter that 
underlying test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \80\Joanna C. Schwartz, Police Indemnification, 89 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 
885 (2014).
    \81\Graham, 490 U.S. at 397.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Consistent with the overall purpose of addressing police 
misconduct, H.R. 7120 does not address qualified immunity in 
civil rights suits against other types of officials. As already 
noted, qualified immunity imposes a particularly high barrier 
to recovery in excessive force cases when combined with the 
fact-specific nature of the ``objective reasonableness'' test 
applied by the courts. Nonetheless, this legislation in no 
sense constitutes a ratification of qualified immunity in other 
contexts. The Committee shares the widespread concerns that 
have been raised regarding the doctrine, including its lack of 
foundation in the text of Section 1983 and the obstacles it 
presents to victims whose constitutional rights have been 
violated. In the future, the Committee may consider legislation 
to eliminate qualified immunity in cases against other types of 
officials, including by taking into account the nature of the 
officials' duties and the types of constitutional claims likely 
to arise. In addition, because qualified immunity reflects a 
judge-made doctrine and is not rooted in legislative text, the 
Supreme Court maintains ample authority to revise or eliminate 
it.
            4. Independent Investigations, Departmental Discipline, and 
                    Civilian Oversight
    H.R. 7120 ensures independent investigations of police uses 
of force and independent civilian oversight of police 
departments. Police departments use internal disciplinary 
processes to sanction officers whose application of force 
deviates from departmental policies and procedures. Penalties 
can range from loss of leave to termination. Each state 
legislature has passed a set of administrative rules, typically 
called a ``Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights (LEOBR)'' 
that govern departmental disciplinary procedures. One key and 
controversial provision typically included in a LEOBR is the 
``cooling off'' period, in which departmental investigators are 
prohibited from interviewing officers that have fatally applied 
force for a pre-determined period of time (typically 2-10 days) 
following the incident. The purpose of this provision is to 
allow for the psychological trauma typically involved in a 
fatal application of force to recede prior to compelling the 
officer to recount the events of the incident in detail.
    Additionally, many police departments enter into contracts 
with police unions that allow officers that have engaged in 
serious or repeated misconduct to remain on the force, or 
transfer to other police forces. For example, 43 cities and 4 
states erase records of misconduct making it difficult to 
discipline repeat offenders, or track officers with a 
propensity for misconduct if they switch departments.\82\ One 
high profile example of how this failure ended in fatal 
consequences was when former Chicago Police Officer Jason Van 
Dyke, who had 20 complaints--half of which concerned use of 
force--fired 16 shots at Laquan McDonald, killing him.\83\ Van 
Dyke was never disciplined or flagged as a potential problem 
and was later convicted of second degree murder for killing 
McDonald.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\See Police Union Contract Project, checkthepolice.org, https://
www.checkthepolice.org (last accessed May 29, 2020).
    \83\See Stephen Rushin, Police Union Contracts, 66 Duke L.J. 1191, 
1195, n. 14 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Critics argue that departmental disciplinary processes 
serve to protect officers from true accountability. For 
example, a study of the CPD showed that it sustained only 15 
excessive force complaints out of 5,357 filed between 2002 and 
2004.\84\ Additionally, a June 2019 NYPD Inspector General 
report showed that the NYPD failed to sustain any of the 2,495 
complaints of racially biased policing made between 2014 and 
2018.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\Craig B. Futterman, H. Melissa Mather, and Melanie Miles, The 
Use of Statistical Evidence to Address Police Supervisory and 
Disciplinary Practices: The Chicago Police Department's Broken System, 
1 DePaul J. for Soc. Just., 251, 267 (Table 1) (2008).
    \85\N.Y. Dep't of Investigation, Complaints of Biased Policing in 
New York City 2 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many state and local law enforcement agencies have 
authorized civilian oversight over police departments. The idea 
behind civilian review is to provide a level of oversight and 
deterrence, separate and independent of the police departments, 
that carries legitimacy within the community. Typically, 
civilian oversight bodies use an adversarial fact-finding 
process to investigate individual claims of police 
misconduct.\86\ They are also authorized to investigate 
patterns of police misconduct, engage in community outreach, 
and recommend policy reforms.\87\ Critics of civilian oversight 
bodies point out that they often lack investigative resources 
and expertise, and the power to independently sanction police 
officers who are found responsible for engaging in 
misconduct.\88\ In the typical model, although the civilian 
oversight body can recommend a sanction, any actual punishment 
is determined by the department.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\Nathan Witkin, The Police-Community Partnership: Civilian 
Oversight As An Evaluation Tool for Community Policing, 18 Scholar: St. 
Mary's L. Rev. & Soc. Just. 181, 187 (2016).
    \87\Id. at 187.
    \88\See id. at 188-193.
    \89\See id. at 192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To address some of the concerns about the limitations of 
departmental disciplinary mechanisms and civilian oversight, 
including concern about police officers who have repeatedly 
engaged in misconduct being permitted to continue serving as 
officers, H.R. 7120 creates a grant program for state attorneys 
general to establish independent investigation processes for 
uses of deadly force by law enforcement officers, to address 
concerns about the lack of such independence in department-led 
investigations.\90\ Both the President's Task Force and the 
USCCR recommended such an independent investigation process for 
police misconduct.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\H.R. 7210, Sec. 104.
    \91\USCCR Report at 5; The President's Task Force at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bill also establishes a national police misconduct 
registry that would allow members of the public and law 
enforcement agencies to know about a particular officer's 
history of misconduct complaints, the officer's discipline or 
termination records, and records of lawsuits or settlements 
involving the officer and require agencies to certify hiring 
eligibility for law enforcement officers who change 
departments.\92\ As Dr. Phillip Goff, Co-Founder and Chief 
Executive Officer of the Center for Policing Equity, testified, 
a national police misconduct registry is a reform that will 
increase transparency and the public's trust in law enforcement 
agencies. Doctors and lawyers, along with many other 
professions, are required to be licensed and their employment 
data are shared across state lines by appropriate entities. Why 
should a police officer who has been terminated for cause be 
able to move to another state or jurisdiction without 
undergoing an appropriate background check? The creation of a 
national clearinghouse with a list of those officers who have 
been terminated will empower state and local governments to 
decide what standards they want to set for officer conduct and 
character. Without it, many law enforcement agencies simply do 
not have the capacity to determine whether or not an officer 
was fired prior to seeking employment--and many, therefore, do 
not.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\H.R. 7120, Sec. Sec. 201, 202.
    \93\Goff Testimony at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bill also requires the Attorney General to conduct a 
study of the impact that any law, rule, or procedure that 
allows law enforcement officers to unreasonably delay answering 
questions from investigators of their misconduct.\94\ This 
provision will help guide future efforts to address 
unreasonable or arbitrary delays by officers accused of 
misconduct in responding to investigators' inquiries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\H.R. 7120, Sec. 115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Data Collection Measures

    H.R. 7120 addresses the concern raised by the 2018 USCCR 
report and amplified by the testimony of several witnesses 
before the Committee on the need for robust data collection on 
police-community encounters and that a lack of comprehensive, 
publicly-available data about police use of force sharpens 
mistrust of the police in minority communities.\95\ As the 
USCCR found, accurate and comprehensive data regarding police 
uses of force is generally not available to police departments 
or the American public, no comprehensive national database 
exists that captures rates of police use of force, and the lack 
of data on use of force is exacerbated by the absence of 
mandatory federal reporting and standardized reporting 
guidelines.\96\ Similarly, the President's Task Force had 
recommended the collection and public availability of 
demographic data concerning police interactions with the 
public.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\USCCR Report at 4; Acevedo Testimony at 5 (``robust data 
collection and analysis can help inform decision-making and identify 
problems''); Davis at 6 (emphasizing the need to require ``robust data 
collection on police community encounters and law enforcement 
activities'' that should capture all demographic categories and be 
disaggregated); Gupta Testimony at 5 (highlighting importance of 
disaggregated data and emphasizing that this data ``allows communities 
and departments to analyze the effects of policies and practices, and 
to change and advocate against them if they are ineffective or 
disproportionately affect particular communities or groups).
    \96\USCCR Report at 4.
    \97\The President's Task Force at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The task of collecting data regarding the scope of 
excessive, but non-fatal, applications of force is made more 
complicated by the use of ``cover charges'' or arrests lacking 
in legal justification, to serve as a pretext for officers to 
apply excessive force or engage in other misconduct.\98\ These 
offenses, often charged alone or in combination with other low-
level charges, include battery, resisting arrest, disorderly 
conduct, and failure to obey a lawful order. In some instances, 
the cover charges arise from traffic stops or other minor 
encounters that escalate when an officer feels disrespected. 
This abusive conduct deters victims from reporting instances of 
excessive force or other misconduct and undermines 
investigations into misconduct.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\See Jonah Newman, Chicago police use ``cover charges'' to 
justify excessive force, Chicago Reporter, Oct. 23, 2018, https://
www.chicagoreporter.com/chicago-police-use-cover-charges-to-justify-
excessive-force/.
    \99\See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, research indicates the widespread use of cover 
charges to hide instances in which police applied excessive 
force in Chicago. Since 2004, 66% of reported CPD force 
applications resulted in the victim being arrested for 
aggravated assault against a police officer, aggravated battery 
against a police officer, or resisting arrest.\100\ Between 
2012 and September 2016, Chicago police made more than 1,300 
arrests where the only charge was resisting arrest, and more 
than half of these cases were ultimately dismissed; the absence 
of an underlying offense raises red flags as to the legitimacy 
of the officer's decision to use force.\101\ The burden then 
falls on the victim to determine how to use their limited time 
and resources; the options include defending the criminal 
charges, pleading guilty, hoping for diversion or dismissal by 
the prosecution, or filing an excessive force complaint. The 
evidence indicates that cover charge arrests cause direct and 
significant harm to those arrested, impact communities of color 
disproportionately, and exacerbate tensions between those 
communities and law enforcement.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\See id.
    \101\See id.
    \102\See generally, Christy E. Lopez, Disorderly (mis) Conduct: The 
Problem with ``Contempt of Cop'' Arrests, American Constitution Society 
For Law and Policy, available at http://live-acslaw.pantheonsite.io/wp-
content/uploads/2018/04/Lopez_Contempt_of_Cop.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 7120 addresses the concern about the lack of adequate 
and consistent data collection regarding police conduct by 
requiring the Attorney General to collect data on use of force 
incidents from state and local law enforcement entities, 
disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national origin, age, 
disability, housing status, English language proficiency, and 
gender.\103\ The reports from state and local agencies to the 
Attorney General must also include the date, time and location 
of the incident; whether the civilian was armed; the reason 
force was used; and a description of any injuries.\104\ This 
information is to be made available to the public.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\H.R. 7120, Sec. 223.
    \104\Id.
    \105\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Pre-Incident Measures To Reduce Risk of Violent Police-Citizen 
        Encounters

            1. Use of Force Standards
    H.R. 7120 establishes a uniform use-of-force standard for 
federal officers and conditions grants for state and local law 
enforcement agencies on their following those same use-of-force 
standards.\106\ In terms of the substance of these standards, 
the bill requires that federal officers use deadly force only 
as a last resort to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury 
and requires officers to employ de-escalation techniques.\107\ 
The standard would also allow federal officers to use less 
lethal force only if necessary and proportional to effectuate 
an arrest.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\H.R. 7120, Sec. 364.
    \107\Id.
    \108\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Law enforcement agencies generally have a set of directives 
or ``general orders'' that govern how they deliver services to 
the public, including the circumstances under which officers 
are authorized to use force. The standards provide officers 
with the tools they need to protect themselves and the public 
during encounters that are often emotionally charged and 
rapidly evolving. For example, the policy of the Metropolitan 
Police Department of Washington D.C., as expressed in its 
general orders, is to ``value and preserve human life when 
using lawful authority to use force.''\109\ The policy provides 
guidance on when deadly force is authorized, provides a 
continuum for the level of non-deadly force appropriate for 
given situations, requires the provision of prompt medical 
attention to any injured subject, and requires notification and 
reporting for all applications of force involving injury.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \109\D.C. Metro. Police Dep't., Gen. Order GO-RAR-901.07 at 2, 
available at https://go.mpdconline.com/GO/GO_901_07.pdf.
    \110\See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Such standards on use of force, however, vary from 
jurisdiction to jurisdiction in substance or in the manner of 
application. Testifying in support of H.R. 7120's uniform use-
of-force standards, Professor Paul Butler of Georgetown 
University Law Center noted, ``There are 18,000 different 
police departments in the United States, and the problem is 
that right now there are 18,000 different ways of policing. To 
establish accountability and transparency among the men and 
women who are licensed to kill, basic standards must be 
imposed.''\111\ Several other witnesses also testified in 
support of the bill's use-of-force standards.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\Butler Testimony at 4-5.
    \112\Crump Testimony at 1 (stating that police officers should 
``only use the level of force needed based on the level of threat 
actually posed by the circumstances); Davis Testimony at 6, 9 (stating 
NOBLE's support for bill's use of force provision); Gupta Testimony at 
4 (stating support for bill's use of force provision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            2. Accreditation
    Law enforcement accreditation entities institutionalize 
best practices in the delivery of public safety services by 
establishing a professionalized set of policing standards, 
developed by public safety practitioners and other experts, 
that address core issues impacting community confidence while 
supporting police as an institution.\113\ To maintain 
accreditation, law enforcement agencies voluntarily demonstrate 
that they meet the established standards. Accredited agencies 
must develop comprehensive, uniform directives linked to the 
accreditation standards, which are reinforced on an ongoing 
basis through data collection, onsite observation, agency 
reporting, community input, and public commission 
hearings.\114\ Accreditation demonstrates a law enforcement 
agency's commitment to safety and professionalism which 
strengthens the agency's reputation in and relationship with 
the community. It also promotes a culture of compliance and 
accountability within the agency which, in turn, reduces its 
exposure to liability.\115\ H.R. 7120 adopts this approach, in 
part, by requiring the Attorney General to create law 
enforcement accreditation standards based on recommendations by 
the President's Task Force.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\Policing Strategies for the 21st Century: Hearing Before the 
H. Comm. On the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 12-13 (2015) (testimony of W. 
Craig Hartley, Jr. Executive Director, Commission on Accreditation of 
Law Enforcement Agencies).
    \114\See id. at 12.
    \115\Matt Kenyon, Benefits of Police Accreditation, POWERDMS, Aug. 
13, 2018, available at https://www.powerdms.com/blog/benefits-of-
police-accreditation/.
    \116\H.R. 7120, Sec. 113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            3. Training to End Racial Profiling and To Reduce Risk of 
                    Violent Interactions Between Police and Racial and 
                    Other Minorities
    H.R. 7120 creates several new training programs to reduce 
the risk of violent interactions between law enforcement 
officers and members of minority communities. Federal studies 
examining racial inequality dating back to the 1940s and 1960s 
cited inadequacies in officer training and professionalism as a 
contributing factor to disproportionate police violence against 
minorities and increased racial tensions.\117\ More recently, 
the President's Task Force report made several detailed 
recommendations for improving police officer standards and 
training (POST) and reducing police violence against 
minorities. The 2015 report overall emphasized that POSTs 
should include ``develop[ing] specialized knowledge and 
understanding that enable fair and procedurally just 
policing.''\118\ The 2015 report also noted that while 
``[t]actical skills are important'' developing law enforcement 
officers' ``attitude, tolerance, and interpersonal skills are 
equally'' necessary to improved policing in minority 
communities.\119\ The 2018 USCCR report similarly recommended 
that ``[t]he Department of Justice should robustly support 
local efforts to develop and institute constitutional policing 
practices.''\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \117\See Kerner Commission Report at 15 (suggesting that police 
departments ``develop and adopt policy guidelines to assist officers in 
making critical decisions in cases where police conduct can create 
tension''); 1947 Report at 157 (recommending that ``police training 
programs . . . should be oriented so as to indoctrinate officers with 
an awareness of civil rights problems.).
    \118\The President's Task Force at 52.
    \119\Id.
    \120\USCCR Report at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Committee also heard witness testimony at its June 10, 
2020 oversight hearing on policing practices that echoed the 
2015 and 2018 reports' recommendations that law enforcement 
officer training also include programs on racial and implicit 
bias and racial profiling as a means of improving policing in 
minority communities. Professor Paul Butler stated, ``[t]oo 
often police work seems to enforce the dehumanization of people 
of color. Understanding the history and reality of racism in 
the United States will make our men and women in blue more 
effective police officers.''\121\ LCCHR President Vanita Gupta 
recommended prohibiting racial profiling and the promotion of 
training programs that emphasize ``[t]he equal treatment of all 
people, regardless of background, class, or characteristic'' in 
order ``to prevent and hold officers accountable for 
discriminatory policing and reduce and mitigate its disparate 
impact on marginalized communities.''\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \121\Butler Testimony at 5.
    \122\Gupta Testimony at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The legislation also supports the creation of training 
programs intended to address the inadequacies in law 
enforcement training and tactics that these studies have 
suggested factor into the disproportionate rate of police 
violence against racial minorities and other marginalized 
groups. Section 114 of H.R. 7120 authorizes the use of grant 
funding to support local law enforcement in developing policing 
best practices in areas including effective management, 
training, hiring, and oversight standards and programs to 
promote effective community and problem-solving strategies for 
law enforcement agencies.\123\ To that end, section 114 also 
authorizes the development of pilot programs designed to 
implement policies, practices, and procedures addressing 
training and instruction to comply with accreditation standards 
in areas including: the use of force, and de-escalation tactics 
and techniques; investigation of officer misconduct and 
practices and procedures for referring to prosecuting 
authorities allegations of use of excessive force or racial 
profiling; interactions with youth, individuals with 
disabilities, individuals with limited English proficiency, and 
multi-cultural communities; and community relations and bias 
awareness.\124\ This section also authorizes grants for pilot 
programs to develop policies, procedures, and practices for the 
recruitment, hiring, retention, and promotion of diverse law 
enforcement officers.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \123\H.R. 7120, Sec. 114.
    \124\Id.
    \125\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 334 authorizes the use of grant funding to support 
local law enforcement in the development and implementation of 
best practices for training to prevent racial profiling and to 
encourage more respectful interaction with the public.\126\ 
Section 361 requires the Attorney General to establish a 
training program for law enforcement officers to cover racial 
profiling, implicit bias, and procedural justice.\127\ It also 
requires the Attorney General to establish 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 to establish a training program that 
cover the duty to intervene.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \126\H.R. 7120, Sec. 334.
    \127\H.R. 7120, Sec. 361.
    \128\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            4. Ban on Chokeholds and Carotid Holds
    In response to the cases of George Floyd, Eric Garner, and 
others, H.R. 7120 incentivizes state and local law enforcement 
agencies to ban the use of chokeholds and carotid holds.\129\ 
It also defines a chokehold as a ``punishment, pain, or 
penalty'' for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242, the federal civil 
rights criminal statute discussed earlier in this report.\130\ 
This definition makes chokeholds and carotid holds a federal 
civil rights crime under Section 242. Testifying in support of 
this provision, Vanita Gupta of LCCHR stated ``Chokeholds are 
inherently dangerous, as we have seen in the horrific deaths of 
George Floyd and Eric Garner before. Recognizing the inherent 
danger of chokeholds and the threat they pose to human life, 
police departments in cities such as New York, Atlanta, and 
Miami prohibit them.''\131\ Other witnesses also testified in 
support of the bill's ban on chokeholds and similar 
maneuvers.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \129\H.R. 7120, Sec. 363(b).
    \130\Id. Sec. 363(c).
    \131\Gupta Testimony at 5.
    \132\Crump Testimony at 1; Davis Testimony at 6, 8; Goff Testimony 
at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            5. Ban on No-Knock Warrants in Drug Cases
    In response to the serious risk to lives that the use of 
no-knock warrants presents, as demonstrated by the tragic 
circumstances of Breonna Taylor's death, Section 362 of H.R. 
7120 bans no-knock warrants in drug cases at the federal level 
and conditions law enforcement funding for state and local law 
enforcement agencies on prohibition of the use of no-knock 
warrants in drug cases.\133\ ``No-knock'' raids are a 
pernicious exception to the Fourth Amendment ``knock and 
announce'' rule that permits law enforcement officers to enter 
a residence without knocking or otherwise announcing their 
presence. In the course of securing a no knock warrant, law 
enforcement agencies must show that providing notice may be 
dangerous, futile, or result in the destruction of evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \133\H.R. 7120, Sec. 362.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the George W. Bush Administration in 2002, the DOJ 
recognized that ``although officers need not take affirmative 
steps to make an independent re-verification of the 
circumstances already recognized by a magistrate in issuing a 
no-knock warrant, such a warrant does not entitle officers to 
disregard reliable information clearly negating the existence 
of exigent circumstances when they actually receive such 
information before execution of the warrant.''\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\Patrick F. Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office 
of Legal Counsel, Authority of Federal Judges and Magistrates to Issue 
``No-Knock'' Warrants, (Jun. 12, 2002), available at https://
www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2002/06/31/op-olc-
v026-p0044_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the course of the last few decades, the use of ``no 
knock'' warrants, which are primarily used in drug 
investigations, and typically justified by the belief that 
offenders will destroy drugs, have become more frequent, and 
these raids occur at an alarming rate in the U.S. every year. 
In the early 1980s, approximately 1,500 no-knock warrants were 
executed annually, and by 2010, about 45,000 such warrants were 
executed.\135\ There exists, however, an increased risk of 
death or injury to children, bystanders, or others caught in 
the crossfire during these volatile execution of no-knock 
warrants. Between 2010 and 2016, at least 81 civilians and 13 
law enforcement officers died as a result of executing no-knock 
warrants in drug cases.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \135\Eric Foster, Death and heartbreak caused by `no-knock' 
warrants are impossible to justify, (Jun 17, 2020), available at 
https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2020/06/death-and-heartbreak-caused-
by-no-knock-warrants-are-impossible-to-justify-eric-foster.html.
    \136\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As Ms. Gupta stated in her testimony in support of the 
bill's ban on no-knock warrants,
    No-knock warrants are inherently dangerous and have not 
proven to be more effective than search warrants that preserve 
the Fourth Amendment rule of knock-and-announce. When police 
burst into people's houses, unannounced, occupants are more 
likely to use weapons to try to defend themselves--endangering 
both the public and officers. We saw this exact scenario play 
out with Breonna Taylor's death. Furthermore, the increased 
risk of death or injury to children, bystanders, or others 
caught in the crossfire counsels against the use of no-knock 
warrants. Indeed, two states already outlaw no-knock warrants. 
Congress should likewise pass legislation prohibiting their 
use.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \137\Gupta Testimony at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            6. Limit Transfers of Military Equipment for Police
              a. Background on 1033 Program
    Over the past ten years, the deployment by law enforcement 
of second-hand military equipment has become a fixture at 
protests throughout the United States. Following the 2014 
protests in Ferguson, MO, law enforcement acquisition and use 
of military vehicles and firearms, through a program frequently 
referred to as the ``1033 Program,'' came under increased 
scrutiny.\138\ The use of surplus military equipment at recent 
protests has again refocused Congressional interest in 
oversight over the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \138\See 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2576a (2018). The reference to ``1033'' is 
to Section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1997, the 
provision that granted permanent authority to the Secretary of Defense 
to transfer defense material to federal and state law enforcement 
agencies. Daniel H. Else, The ``1033'' Program, Department of Defense 
Support to Law Enforcement, Congressional Research Service Report to 
Congress 2, R43701 (Aug. 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 1033 Program authorizes law enforcement agencies to 
receive surplus military property from the Department of 
Defense (DoD). Within DoD, the Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) 
Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) administers the Program 
and facilitates law enforcement agencies' receipt of excess 
military equipment. Currently, every state in the United States 
participates in the program, in addition to the District of 
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands. Additionally, a number of federal agencies and 
Indian tribes also receive excess equipment. As of 2016, 6,536 
law enforcement agencies participated in the program.\139\ From 
1991 to 2017, DoD reported that it transferred over $7 billion-
worth of its excess controlled and noncontrolled personal 
property to more than 8,600 federal, state, and local law 
enforcement agencies.\140\ Participants in the 1033 Program may 
choose to receive a diverse set of equipment, from uniforms, 
boots, and personal protective gear to weapons, ammunition, 
armored personnel carriers, and aircraft.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \139\U.S. Gov. Accountability Office, DOD Excess Property (GAO-17-
532), 8, Jul. 2017, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/
685916.pdf [hereinafter ``GAO Report''].
    \140\Brian Barrett, The Pentagon's Hand-Me-Downs Helped Militarize 
Police. Here's How, Wired, Jun. 6, 2020, https://www.wired.com/story/
pentagon-hand-me-downs-militarize-police-1033-program/.
    \141\By example, in 2014, Kentucky received generators, assault 
weapons, and socks. See Jonathan Meador, Kentucky Police Get Guns, 
Aircraft and Socks from Military Surplus Program, 89.3 WFPL News 
Louisville, Aug. 27, 2014, available at https://wfpl.org/kentucky-
police-get-guns-aircraft-and-socks-from-military-surplus-program/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              b. Regulation of the 1033 Program
    Since its inception, the 1033 Program has been subject to 
intense oversight on account of the DoD's excessively lax 
administration of the Program.\142\ Following the Ferguson 
protests, President Obama issued Executive Order 13688, which 
aimed to rein in law enforcement's use of military 
equipment.\143\ In Executive Order 13688, President Obama 
directed an interagency group to develop guidelines that would 
impose ``limitations or affirmative obligations imposed on the 
acquisition of controlled equipment or receipt of funds to 
purchase controlled equipment.''\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \142\See DoD, DLA Office of the Inspector General, Audit of Law 
Enforcement Support Office Program Oversight, DLA OIG FY14-02 (Nov. 21, 
2013); DLA Office of the Inspector General, Follow-up Audit of the Law 
Enforcement Support Office, DAO-12-26 (Apr. 4, 2013); DLA 
Accountability Office, Audit of Law Enforcement Support Office, Defense 
Reutilization and Marketing Service, DAO-09-01 (Mar. 1, 2010); and 
Office of the Inspector General, Logistics: Law Enforcement Support 
Office Excess Property Program, D-2003-101 (June 13, 2003).
    \143\Exec. Order No. 13688, Federal Support for Local Law 
Enforcement Equipment Acquisition, 80 C.F.R. 3451 (2015).
    \144\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2015, the Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group 
convened pursuant to Executive Order 13688 issued a report 
that, among other recommendations, obliged Executive agencies 
to carry out reviews of compliance with ``financial and 
programmatic obligations and adherence to civil rights statutes 
and requirements'' by 1033 Program recipients.\145\ 
Additionally, the report encouraged Executive agencies to 
consider whether a 1033 Program recipient had been found to be 
in violation of a federal civil rights statute or programmatic 
term during the previous three years when considering future 
provision of federal property. Two years later, the President's 
Task Force echoed the concern with misuse or abuse of 
controlled equipment, like that issued through the 1033 
Program, and recommended compliance with civil rights 
requirements resulting from receipt of federal financial 
assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \145\Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group, Recommendations 
Pursuant to Executive Order 13688: Federal Support for Local Law 
Enforcement Equipment Acquisition, May 2015, https://
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
le_equipment_wg_final_report_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In July 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
issued a report that reviewed the 1033 Program, with a specific 
focus on accountability of controlled items and DoD's 
administration of the Program. As part of their review, the GAO 
posed as a law enforcement agency and applied for controlled 
items through the 1033 Program. GAO employees, who represented 
that they were representatives of the created law enforcement 
agency were about to obtain ``over 100 controlled items with an 
estimated value of $1.2 million, including nightvision goggles, 
simulated rifles, and simulated pipe bombs, which could be 
potentially lethal items if modified with commercially 
available items.''\146\ Not surprisingly, the GAO's testing 
identified that DLA has deficiencies in its processes for 
verification and approval of federal law enforcement agency 
applications and in the transfer of controlled property. The 
GAO also found that DoD had not conducted a fraud risk 
assessment and lacked internal controls that could prevent, 
detect, and respond to potential fraud and minimize associated 
security risks. On August 28, 2017, President Donald J. Trump 
revoked Executive Order 13688 and lifted many of the 
accountability measures that were instituted on account of 
President Obama's order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \146\GAO Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In light of the foregoing, H.R. 7120 limits transfers under 
the 1033 Program from the U.S. military to federal and state 
law enforcement agencies. Despite the opposition from members 
of the Minority to this provision, there is good reason to 
restrict transfers of firearms and military-grade equipment. 
The record of mismanagement of the 1033 program is well-
documented, as outlined above. The GAO found poor management by 
DoD over the transfer of controlled items, such as firearms. 
Furthermore, contrary to what the Minority asserts, the bill's 
language does not prohibit the transfer of items that are not 
made for military use, such as office supplies and clothing. 
These items make up the overwhelming majority of items 
transferred through the 1033 program. The bill simply prohibits 
the transfer of military vehicles, firearms, and surveillance 
equipment.
    The Minority's attempt to allow transfer of military 
equipment for use in border control and enforcement was also 
misguided. The Congress already provides hundreds of millions 
of dollars for border enforcement. Studies suggest that 
agencies that receive such equipment see no measurable 
improvement in officer safety or crime rates, and, rather, 
there is a correlation with higher rates of officer-involved 
shootings and reduced public trust. There's no evidence that 
additional military-grade equipment will improve border 
security. This alone serves as justification for the transfer 
limitations in the bill. Sending additional military equipment 
for use in border enforcement also further militarizes the 
Canadian and Mexican borders, communities where tens of 
millions of Americans live.
            7. Body Cameras and Limits on Facial Recognition Technology
              a. Law Enforcement and Body Cameras
    Over the past several years, body cameras have come to be 
regarded as a key police accountability tool. A 2015 poll found 
that 88 percent of Americans supported the use of body cameras 
by law enforcement.\147\ Beginning in 2015, the DOJ under the 
Obama Administration began awarding grants to local law 
enforcement agencies to aid in financing the initial purchase 
of body cameras.\148\ In 2016, DOJ surveys found that 95 
percent of law enforcement agencies in large cities had already 
launched or planned to launch body camera programs in the 
future.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \147\Peter Moore, Overwhelming support for police body cameras, 
YouGov.Com, May 7, 2015 available at https://today.yougov.com/topics/
politics/articles-reports/2015/05/07/body-cams.
    \148\Kimberly Kindy, Some U.S. police departments dump body-camera 
programs amid high costs, Wash. Post, Jan. 21, 2019.
    \149\P.R. Lockhart, Why some police departments are dropping their 
body camera programs, Vox, Jan. 25, 2019 available at https://
www.vox.com/2019/1/24/18196097/police-body-cameras-storage-cost-
washington-post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the adoption of body camera programs by law 
enforcement agencies appears to be growing--if not widespread 
among major law enforcement agencies--there are no uniform 
standards with respect to protocols for the use of body cameras 
that balance law enforcement needs with personal privacy 
interests, as well as the processing and retention of data. 
Similarly, some small and medium-sized law enforcement 
departments are reportedly ending their body camera programs 
due to the costs associated with the retention and processing 
of body camera footage.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \150\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 7120 addresses these issues by requiring federal 
uniformed police officers to wear body cameras and to have 
dashboard cameras in marked federal patrol vehicles, setting 
forth rules governing retention and dissemination of footage 
and describing ways in which footage can be used to investigate 
misconduct or as evidence in criminal proceedings.\151\ With 
respect to state and local law enforcement, the bill requires 
that they use existing federal funds to ensure the use of body 
cameras by officers and requires grant recipients to establish 
policies and procedures for safe use of such cameras.\152\ 
Specifically, it authorizes DOJ to award grants and to provide 
technical assistance related to body camera programs, and to 
condition such awards on the adoption of uniform standards 
described in the legislation.\153\ The grant program is also 
intended to ensure that small and medium-sized law enforcement 
agencies are able to acquire funding to maintain their body-
camera programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \151\H.R. 7120, Sec. Sec. 371-373, 375-377.
    \152\H.R. 7120, Sec. Sec. 381-382.
    \153\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              b. Facial Recognition Technology
    Facial recognition systems use computer algorithms to pick 
out specific details about a person's face, such as the 
distance between the eyes or the shape of a chin, and converts 
these details into a mathematical representation.\154\ This 
information is then compared to data on faces already collected 
in the facial recognition database.\155\ Facial recognition 
technology can identify people in photos, videos, or in real-
time. Face recognition has been used in airports, at border 
crossings, and during events such as the Super Bowl.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \154\Jennifer Lynch, Face Off: Law Enforcement Use of Facial 
Recognition Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 4-5 (2019), 
available at, https://www.eff.org/wp/law-enforcement-use-face-
recognition.
    \155\Id at 5.
    \156\Niraj Chokshi, Facial Recognition's Many Controversies: From 
Stadium Surveillance to Racist Software, N. Y. Times, May 1, 2019 
(noting that the city of Tampa, Florida, used facial recognition 
software during the 2001 Superbowl and identified 19 people with 
outstanding warrants). See also Franchesca Street, How Facial 
Recognition is Taking Over Airports, CNN Oct. 8, 2019) (noting that 
some airlines are using a facial scan instead of boarding passes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                i. Federal Government Use of Facial Recognition 
                    Technology
    The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) mainly uses two 
types of facial recognition software, Next General 
Identification-Interstate Photo System (NGI-ISP) and Facial 
Analysis, Comparison and Evaluation (FACE) Services. The NGI-
ISP database contains over 30 million face recognition records 
pulled from state criminal sources, such as mug shots, and is 
shared with state and local governments.\157\ In addition to 
the FBI, a select group of state and local agencies can also 
submit a request to use NGI-ISP to help them identify an 
unknown person during an investigation. According to the FBI, 
in fiscal year, NGI-ISP returned about 50,000 face recognition 
search results to law enforcement agencies.\158\ The FBI also 
has a team of employees working in FACE Services.\159\ Unlike 
NGI-ISP, FACE Services use non-criminal photos, pulled mostly 
from driver's license photos, passports, and visa applications. 
The FBI has agreements with 21 states as well as the Department 
of State to allow it to search its systems. The total number of 
photos available to FACE Services is more than 411 
million.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \157\Memorandum from Kimberly Del Greco, Criminal Justice Info. 
Serv., FBI to Comm. on Oversight & Reform Staff (May 30, 2019), 
available at https://oversight.house.gov/sites/
democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/
2019.05.31.%20Hearing%20Memo%20for%20the%20
Facial%20Recognition%20Technology%20%28Part%20II%29.pdf.
    \158\Statement of Gretta L. Goodwin, Director, Homeland Security 
and Justice Team, U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, Before the Comm. on 
Oversight & Reform, H. of Rep., June 4, 2010, available at https://
docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20190604/109578/HHRG-116-GO00-Wstate-
GoodwinG-20190604.pdf.
    \159\Lynch, Face Off, supra note 1, at 15.
    \160\Government Accountability Office, Face Recognition Technology; 
FBI Should Better Ensure Privacy and Accuracy (May 2016), available at 
www.gao.gov/productus/GAO-16-267).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                ii. Facial Recognition's Shortcomings
    The use of this technology is troubling because studies 
have shown that these identification systems have a high error 
rate when it comes to correctly identifying women and people of 
color.\161\ A 2019 study conducted by the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology on the reliability of facial 
recognition systems found that there was a higher rate of false 
positives for black people than for whites.\162\ The study also 
showed that false positives were up to 100 times more likely 
for black people than for white people.\163\ Additionally, the 
rate of false positives were higher for women than men across 
all races.\164\ Not surprisingly, since African Americans are 
more likely to be arrested (and subsequently photographed), the 
high propensity of false positives has a disproportionate 
impact on the group.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \161\Patrick Grother Mei Ngan Kayee Hanaoka, Face Recognition 
Vendor Test (FRVT) Part 3: Demographic Effects, NIST, 2019, available 
at https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ir/2019/NIST.IR.8280.pdf.
    \162\See id.
    \163\Id.
    \164\Id.
    \165\Megan Stevenson, & Sandra Gabriel Mayson, The Scale of 
Misdemeanor Justice. 98 Boston Univ. L. Rev 731, 759 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the fact that the FBI has been using these 
recognition systems for many years, there is little 
transparency and oversight within the FBI regarding its facial 
recognition systems.\166\ A GAO report found that the FBI had 
not yet conducted the necessary audits of its newest facial 
recognition system to ensure that the system can correctly 
identify individuals.\167\ Nor has the FBI studied how states 
have used the information gleaned from FBI's facial recognition 
systems.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \166\GAO, Face Recognition Technology; supra note 7.
    \167\Id.
    \168\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 7120's body-camera provisions also contain limitations 
on the use of facial recognition technology. Specifically, the 
bill prohibits the use of facial recognition technology in body 
cameras worn by federal officers, prohibits footage from such 
cameras from being subjected to facial recognition technology, 
and imposes the same restrictions on dashboard cameras and 
footage.\169\ Additionally, it prohibits states from using 
federal funds for expenses related to facial recognition 
technology.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \169\H.R. 7120, Sec. Sec. 372(g), 374.
    \170\Id. Sec. 382(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            8. Incentivizing Public Safety Innovations
    In addition to providing program support for training and 
mechanisms of accountability for police misconduct, H.R. 7120 
also authorizes the use of federal grant money to foster 
innovation in areas of public safety. The Committee recognizes 
that a potent mix of interconnected societal ills such as 
racism and poverty--which federal and state governments have 
failed to adequately address for decades--have long shaped law 
enforcement officers' interactions with minority communities, 
especially in poverty-stricken communities, contributing to 
incidences of police violence.\171\ Societal issues like 
poverty, chronic homelessness, untreated substance abuse, and 
unaddressed mental illness, while not exclusive to communities 
of color, disproportionately affect them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \171\See Kerner Commission Report; 1947 Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Several witnesses at the Committee's June 10, 2020 hearing 
recommended that the federal government support efforts to 
develop alternative means to address public safety concerns 
stemming from societal problems that are too often left to law 
enforcement officers to manage. LCCHR President Vanita Gupta 
noted in her written testimony that ``[m]any factors contribute 
to crises relating to disabilities and substance use disorders, 
such as inadequate social services and supports, high rates of 
poverty, income inequality, housing insecurity, and an ongoing 
opioid epidemic.''\172\ Yet because of the lack of investment 
in mental health and other social services ``[m]any of these 
same issues are generally the basis for police encounters that 
often escalate to the use of force or turn deadly.''\173\ NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund President Sherrilyn Ifill 
suggested in her testimony that ``a revised vision of public 
safety that prioritizes social services, youth development, 
mental health, reentry support, and meaningful provisions for 
homeless individuals that strengthen community resources to 
proactively address underlying factors that can contribute to 
public safety concerns.''\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \172\Gupta Testimony at 6.
    \173\Id.; see also Goff Testimony at 4 (``Even police agree that 
they are ill-equipped to perform a number of services that currently 
fall to them. For example, underfunding of mental health resources 
often leaves police departments as the only state agents left to 
respond to serious mental health crises. No one thinks this is ideal, 
but often police are all communities have. Investment in community 
mental health resources is a logical solve for this specific problem, 
allow police to focus on crime reduction.''); Davis Testimony at 11 
(suggesting that policymakers ``stop the over-reliance of police to 
address social issues'' and develop community reinvestment strategies).
    \174\Ifill Testimony at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To this end, Section 366 of H.R. 7120 authorizes the use of 
grant funding for law enforcement programs that 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.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \175\H.R. 7120, Sec. 366.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Criminalizing Conspiracy To Engage in Lynching

    Title IV of H.R. 7120 is the ``Emmett Till Justice for 
Victims of Lunching Act,'' which would make it a federal crime 
to conspire to engage in a number of hate crimes, including 
lynching.\176\ This legislation has already passed the House 
and the Senate, but for parliamentary reasons, it must be 
passed by both chambers again. It is appropriate that it be 
added to this legislation because it would have addressed a 
number of the recent incidents outlined earlier in this report. 
For instance, the killing of Ahmaud Arbery by two white 
civilians appears to have been the kind of racially-motivated 
act of vigilantism that would have been punishable under this 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \176\H.R. 7120, Sec. Sec. 401-402.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Alternative Proposals Offered By President Trump and Senator Scott 
        Are Insufficient

    While the Committee appreciates the fact that both 
President Trump and Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) have attempted to 
engage the conversation over policing reform by offering their 
own proposals, it is the Committee's view that these proposals 
fall far short of what is necessary to effect meaningful 
improvements with respect to police misconduct and the 
reduction of police-community tensions. To be sure, there are 
some points of commonality among all three proposals. For 
example, President Trump's Executive Order, issued on June 16, 
2020, would, like H.R. 7120, establish a national police 
misconduct registry and require the Attorney General to certify 
law enforcement accreditation agencies, and all three proposals 
would make conspiracy to engage in lynching a federal crime.
    The proposals offered by President Trump and Senator Scott, 
however, are completely missing many significant law 
enforcement accountability and reform measures that are 
contained in H.R. 7120 or otherwise take too narrow an approach 
compared to H.R. 7120, falling far short of the comprehensive 
steps needed for meaningful change. For example, neither the 
Executive Order nor Senator Scott's bill: ban no-knock 
warrants, ban racial profiling by law enforcement, ban 
chokeholds without exception, have use of force standards that 
prohibit the use of deadly force by law enforcement except as a 
last resort, abolish qualified immunity, enhance ``pattern or 
practice'' enforcement authority under 34 U.S.C. Sec. 12601, 
and do not modify the overly burdensome mens rea requirement in 
18 U.S.C. Sec. 242.

 Key Distinctions between H.R. 7120, the Scott Bill, and the Executive 
                                 Order

           No-Knock Warrants--While H.R. 7120 bans ``no 
        knock'' warrants in drug cases at the federal level and 
        conditions funding for state and local law enforcement 
        agencies on prohibiting their use; Senator Scott's 
        legislation merely requires states to compile data for 
        use of such no-knock warrants and President Trump's 
        Executive Order completely ignores the problem, which 
        has cost many lives, including most recently Breonna 
        Taylor in Louisville.
           Chokeholds--In light of the tragic deaths of 
        George Floyd, Eric Garner and others, H.R. 7120 bans 
        chokeholds and carotid holds at the federal level and 
        conditions law enforcement funding for state and local 
        law enforcement agencies on prohibiting their use. By 
        contrast, Senator Scott's bill has no federal ban and 
        mere merely encourages chokehold bans, and even that is 
        limited where ``deadly force [is] authorized'' and the 
        President's Executive Order simply seeks standards that 
        take the use of chokeholds into account, also with the 
        exception of cases where ``the use of deadly force is 
        authorized by law.''
           Racial Profiling--H.R. 7120 contains the 
        first ever outright ban on racial and religious 
        profiling and mandates that law enforcement entities 
        provide training on racial, religious, and 
        discriminatory profiling. By contrast Senator Scott's 
        bill does not include any outright ban and merely seeks 
        to study and develop best practices on profiling and 
        the Executive Order ignores this important issue.
           Public Grants to Reimagine Community 
        Policing--This much-needed program to reimagine 
        policing in the wake of all too many cases of violence 
        and death involving police misconduct is included in 
        H.R. 7120, but ignored in the Scott legislation and the 
        President's Executive Order.
           Criminal Intent Standard--While H.R. 7120 
        modifies the criminal intent or mens rea standard to 
        provide for accountability in cases of knowing or 
        reckless misconduct, Senator Scott's legislation and 
        President Trump's recent Executive Order would leave 
        the status quo in place.
           Qualified Immunity in Civil Cases--While 
        H.R. 7120 eliminates the dubious and controversial 
        court-made doctrine of qualified immunity in civil 
        cases which have made it nearly impossible for many 
        victims to obtain recourse, Senator Scott's legislation 
        and President Trump's Executive Order leave the 
        doctrine in place.
           Pattern and Practice Investigations--While 
        H.R. 7120 strengthens pattern and practice 
        investigations at the federal level and authorizes and 
        incentivizes state attorney general investigations, the 
        question is ignored under Senator Scott's legislation 
        and President Trump's Executive Order.
           Independent Prosecution of Misconduct--While 
        H.R. 7120 incentivizes independent investigations of 
        police misconduct by states attorneys general, Senator 
        Scott's bill and President Trump's Executive Order 
        leave in place a system that too often discourages 
        police investigations.
           Accreditation--H.R. 7120 requires the 
        Attorney General to create law enforcement 
        accreditation standard recommendations based on 
        President Obama's Taskforce on 21st Century policing 
        and creates law enforcement development programs to 
        develop policing best practices and improve training, 
        hiring, and retention programs. Senator Scott's bill, 
        however, only addresses law enforcement agency hiring 
        and training programs by providing grant eligibility 
        for recruiters and academy candidates, and President 
        Trump's Executive Order provides for an accreditation 
        system, though it lacks any statutory force of law.
           Misconduct Registry--H.R. 7120 addresses a 
        fundamental deficiency in police hiring processes by 
        creating a federal registry of misconduct involving 
        federal, state and local law enforcement officers--
        which would help ensure officers who were fired, or 
        left the agency due to misconduct, are not re-
        circulated through the hiring process in other 
        jurisdictions--and would allow for public disclosure 
        incidents involving use of force or racial profiling. 
        By contrast, Senator Scott's legislation merely 
        provides for information sharing among agencies, and 
        President Trump's Executive Order is limited to the 
        category of ``deadly use of force.''
           Deadly Force--H.R. 7120 requires that deadly 
        force be used by federal officers only as a last resort 
        to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury and 
        conditions grants on state and local law enforcement 
        agencies doing the same while also establishing duty to 
        intervene standards; and setting up a data collection 
        system; while Senator Scott's bill and the President's 
        Executive Order merely require states to report cases 
        of use of force that leads to death or serious injury. 
        Senator Scott's bill does seek to develop a duty to 
        intervene standard as well.
           Transfer of Military Equipment--H.R. 7120 
        limits the transfer of military-grade equipment to 
        state and local law enforcement, while both Senator 
        Scott's bill and Trump's Executive Order leave the 
        status quo in place.
           Body Cameras--H.R. 7120 requires federal 
        uniformed police officers to wear body cameras and 
        marked federal police vehicles to have dashboard 
        cameras and incentivizes states to do the same (so long 
        as the dashboard cameras and body cameras do not employ 
        facial recognition technology), while Senator Scott's 
        bill merely incentivizes their use at the state and 
        local level while ignoring the concern about facial 
        recognition technology and President Trump's Executive 
        Order ignores the issue entirely.

                                Hearings

    For the purposes of section 103(i) of H. Res. 6 of the 
116th Congress, the following hearing was used to consider H.R. 
7120: Hearing on ``Policing Practices and Law Enforcement 
Accountability'' held before the full Committee on June 10, 
2020, during which there was extensive discussion of H.R. 7120. 
The witnesses were Art Acevedo, Chief of the Houston Police 
Department and President, Major City Chiefs Association; Paul 
Butler, Albert Brick Professor in Law, Georgetown University 
Law Center; Benjamin Crump, Attorney for the Family of George 
Floyd; Ron Davis, National Organization of Black Law 
Enforcement Executives; Philonise Floyd, Brother of George 
Floyd; Phillip Goff, Franklin A. Thomas Professor of Policing 
Equality, John Jay College of Criminal Justice and President, 
Center for Policing Equity; Vanita Gupta, President and Chief 
Executive Officer, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
Rights; Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP 
Legal Defense and Educational Fund; and Marc Morial, President, 
National Urban League; Daniel Bongino, Political Commentator 
and Former Secret Service Agent; Darrell Scott, Pastor and Co-
Founder, New Spirit Revival Center; and Angela Underwood 
Jacobs, Sister of Federal Protective Officer David Underwood.

                        Committee Consideration

    On June 17, 2020, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill, H.R. 7120, favorably reported as an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute, by a rollcall vote of 24 to 14, 
a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's 
consideration of H.R. 7120:
    1. An amendment by Mr. Armstrong to add a section regarding 
audio recording of interviews conducted by certain federal law 
enforcement officers was defeated by a rollcall vote of 13 to 
25.
              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    2. An amendment by Mr. Reschenthaler to add a section 
regarding findings and study regarding Antifa was defeated by a 
rollcall vote of 13 to 25.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    3. An amendment by Mr. Gohmert to strike page 135 lines 16-
35 and insert ``Whoever commits murder in the commission of a 
kidnaping shall be punished by any term of years including life 
or death'' was defeated by a rollcall vote of 15 to 23.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    4. An amendment by Mr. Buck to strike section 102 was 
defeated by a rollcall vote of 13 to 23.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    5. An amendment by Ms. Lesko to add a section regarding 
prohibition of autonomous zones was defeated by a rollcall vote 
of 12 to 23.
              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    6. An amendment by Mr. Steube to strike section 365 was 
defeated by a rollcall vote of 10 to 24.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    7. An amendment by Mr. Gaetz to add a section regarding a 
study on no-knock warrants was defeated by a rollcall vote of 
12 to 24.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    8. An amendment by Mr. Cline to add a section on 
limitations on collective bargaining agreements was defeated by 
a rollcall vote of 12 to 23.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    9. An amendment by Mr. Steube to strike section 362 was 
defeated by a rollcall vote of 13 to 25.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    10. An amendment by Mr. Gaetz to strike subparagraph A on 
page 85 and strike line 23 on page 86 was defeated by a 
rollcall vote of 14 to 24.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    11. An amendment by Mr. Biggs to add a section regarding 
de-escalation tactics and techniques was defeated by a rollcall 
vote of 9 to 26.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    12. An amendment by Ms. Lesko to add a section on no COPS 
grants for jurisdictions that defund the police was defeated by 
a rollcall vote of 13 to 25.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    13. Motion to report H.R. 7120, as amended, favorably was 
agreed to by a rollcall vote of 24 to 14.

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

  New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures and Congressional Budget 
                          Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested 
but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the 
Director of Congressional Budget Office. The Committee has 
requested but not received from the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this bill 
contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit 
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax 
expenditures.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of H.R. 7120 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the federal government known to be duplicative of 
another federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
7120 would create new statutory provisions and amend existing 
statutes to ensure greater accountability for and transparency 
of law enforcement uses of force, create uniform standards, and 
ensure better training for law enforcement to minimize the risk 
of unnecessary or excessive uses of force, and study possible 
public safety innovations.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 7120 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
    Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents. Section 1 sets 
forth the short title ``George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 
2020'' and contains the table of contents.
    Section 2. Definitions. Section 2 contains the definitions 
used under the Act.

                     Title I--Police Accountability


          SUBTITLE A--HOLDING POLICE ACCOUNTABLE IN THE COURTS

    Section 101. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. 
Section 101 amends 18 U.S.C. 242, a criminal statute under 
which law enforcement officers can be charged for willful 
violation of rights under color of law. Section 101(1) changes 
the statute's mens rea requirement from ``willfully'' to 
``knowingly or recklessly.'' Section 101(2) strikes the death 
penalty from the sentences currently permitted under 18 U.S.C. 
242. Section 101(3) adds a new sentence to the end of the 
statute that defines an act under 18 U.S.C. 242 to be 
considered to have resulted in death if the act was a 
substantial factor contributing to the death of the person.
    Section 102. Qualified Immunity Reform. Section 102 amends 
42 U.S.C. 1983, a statute that allows individuals to bring suit 
for harms resulting from a deprivation of a constitutional 
right, to prohibit law enforcement officers from asserting a 
defense or immunity that (1) the defendant was acting in good 
faith, or that the defendant believed, reasonably or otherwise, 
that his or her conduct was lawful at the time when the conduct 
was committed; or (2) the rights, privileges, or immunities 
secured by the Constitution and laws were not clearly 
established at the time of their deprivation by the defendant, 
or that at such time, the state of the law was otherwise such 
that the defendant could not reasonably have been expected to 
know whether his or her conduct was lawful.
    Section 103. Pattern and Practice Investigations. Section 
103 amends 34 U.S.C. 12601, a statute that prohibits a 
government authority or official from engaging in a pattern or 
practice of conduct that deprives persons of their 
constitutional rights and permits the Attorney General to file 
a civil action to eliminate the pattern or practice.
    Section 103(a)(1) adds language making explicit the 
existing understanding and practice that 34 U.S.C. 12601(a) 
prohibits prosecutors from engaging in a pattern or practice of 
conduct that deprives persons of their constitutional rights.
    Section 103(a)(2) amends section 34 U.S.C. 12601(b) by 
changing a reference to paragraph (1) to subsection (a).
    Section 103(a)(3) creates new subsections (c) through (f) 
under 34 U.S.C. 12601:
    New subsection (c) provides the Attorney General with 
subpoena authority to carry out pattern or practice 
investigations under 34 U.S.C. 12601(b).
    New subsection (d) permits state attorneys general or other 
such official as a state may designate to bring a civil action 
in the appropriate federal district court to obtain appropriate 
equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate a pattern or 
practice, and grants states attorneys general or official 
carrying out the authority in this subsection the same subpoena 
authority granted to the Attorney General under new subsection 
(c).
    New subsection (e) adds a rule of construction stating that 
nothing in this section may be construed to limit the authority 
of the Attorney General under 34 U.S.C. 12601(b) in any case in 
which a state attorney general brought a civil action under new 
subsection (d).
    New subsection (f) adds a requirement that one year after 
the date of enactment and annually thereafter, the Civil Rights 
Division 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).
    Section 103(b)(1) authorizes the Attorney General to award 
grants to assist a state in conducting pattern and practice 
investigations under 34 U.S.C. 12601. Grants authorized under 
this subsection may be used only to investigate a pattern or 
practice of misconduct by law enforcement officers, including 
prosecutor's offices, or by officials or employees of any 
governmental agency with responsibility for the administration 
of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles.
    Section 103(b)(2) requires that a state seeking a grant 
under paragraph (1) must submit an application in such form, at 
such time, and containing such information required by the 
Attorney General.
    Section(b)(3) authorizes an appropriation of $100M to the 
Attorney General for each of FY 2021 through 2023 to carry out 
this subsection.
    Section 103(c) amends 34 U.S.C. 12602, a statute that 
permits the Attorney General, through appropriate means, to 
collect data about the use of excessive force by law 
enforcement officers.
    Section 103(c)(1)(A) amends 34 U.S.C. 12602(a) to create a 
new subsection (a)(1) by striking Attorney General and 
inserting ``(1) Federal Collection of Data--Attorney General.''
    Section 103(c)(1)(B) also amends 34 U.S.C. 12602(a) by 
adding a new subparagraph (2) to permit state attorneys 
general, through appropriate means, to acquire data about the 
use of excessive force by law enforcement officers and to allow 
such data to be used in conducting pattern or practice 
investigations permitted under 34 U.S.C. 12601. It also 
prohibits data collected under this paragraph from containing 
any information that may reveal the identity of the victim or 
any law enforcement officers.
    Section 103(c)(2) amends 34 U.S.C. 12602(b), which limits 
the use of data acquired by the Attorney General under 34 
U.S.C. 12602(a), to reference new subsection (a)(1).
    Section 104. Independent Investigations. Section 104 
authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to eligible 
states and Indian Tribes to assist in implementing independent 
investigation of law enforcement statute. It also amends 34 
U.S.C. 10381 et seq. to permit the Community Oriented Policing 
Services (COPS) program to fund grants to develop best 
practices for and to create civilian review boards.
    Section 104(a)(1) contains definitions that apply in this 
subsection.
    Section 104(a)(2) authorizes the Attorney General to award 
grants to eligible states or Indian Tribes under this 
subsection. Grants authorized under this subsection may be used 
only to implement such a statute or conduct independent 
investigations into the use of deadly force by law enforcement 
officers.
    Section 104(a)(3) requires a state or Indian Tribe to have 
in effect an independent investigation of law enforcement 
statute to be eligible for a grant under this subsection.
    Section 104(a)(4) authorizes an appropriation to the 
Attorney General of $750M for FY 2021 through 2023 to carry out 
this subsection.
    Section 104(b) amends 34 U.S.C. 10381 et seq. to permit the 
COPS program to fund grants to develop best practices for and 
to create civilian review boards.

          SUBTITLE B--LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST AND INTEGRITY ACT

    Section 111. Short Title. Section 111 sets forth the short 
title of the subtitle as the ``Law Enforcement Trust and 
Integrity Act of 2020.''
    Section 112. Definitions. Section 112 contains the 
definitions used under the subtitle.
    Section 113. Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies. 
Section 113 requires the Attorney General to study existing law 
enforcement accreditation standards nationwide and then 
recommend the adoption of additional standards that will result 
in greater community accountability of law enforcement 
agencies.
    Section 113(a)(1) requires the Attorney General to perform 
an analysis of existing law enforcement accreditation standards 
developed by law enforcement accreditation organizations 
nationwide.
    Section 113(a)(2)(A) requires the Attorney General, 
following the completion of the analysis described in section 
113(a)(1), to 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. 
Included must be standards related to early warning systems and 
related intervention programs; use of force procedures; 
civilian review procedures; traffic and pedestrian stop and 
search procedures; data collection and transparency; 
administrative due process requirements; video monitoring 
technology; youth justice and school safety; and recruitment, 
hiring, and training.
    Section 113(a)(2)(B) also requires the Attorney General to 
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, and professional civilian oversight 
organizations.
    Section 113(a)(3) requires the Attorney General to adopt 
policies and procedures to partner with existing law 
enforcement accreditation organizations, professional law 
enforcement associations, labor organizations, and professional 
civilian oversight organizations to continue development of 
further accreditation standards consistent with Section 
113(a)(2)(b); to encourage the pursuit of accreditation of 
federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies by 
certified law enforcement accreditation organizations; and to 
develop recommendations for implementation of a national 
accreditation requirement tied to federal grant eligibility.
    Section 113(b) amends 34 U.S.C. 10153(a) to add a new 
paragraph (7) that requires that a grant application made under 
this part include 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.
    Section 114. Law Enforcement Grants. Section 114(a) amends 
34 U.S.C. 10153(a), as amended by section 113, by adding a new 
paragraph (8) that requires that a grant application made under 
this part include 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.
    Section 114(b) authorizes the Attorney General to 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 response.
    Section 114(c) requires that grant amounts described in new 
paragraph (8) added to 34 U.S.C. 10153(a) by section 114(a) and 
grant amounts awarded under section 114(b) of this section 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, civil review boards or analogous procedures, or 
research into the effectiveness of existing programs, projects, 
or other activities designed to address misconduct and (2) to 
develop pilot program 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.
    Section 114(d) requires that a pilot program developed 
under section 114(c)(2) include implementation of the 
following: (1) Training; (2) Recruitment, Hiring, Retention, 
and Promotion of Diverse Law Enforcement Officers; (3) 
Oversight; (4) Youth Justice and School Safety; and (5) Victim 
Services.
    Section 114(e) permits (1) the Attorney general to provide 
technical assistance to states and community-based 
organizations in furtherance of this section; and (2) the 
technical assistance provided by the Attorney General may 
include the development of models for states and community-
based organizations to reduce law enforcement officer 
misconduct. Any development of such models shall be in 
consultation with community-based organizations.
    Section 114(f) permits the Attorney General to use any 
component or components of the Department of Justice in 
carrying out this section.
    Section 114(g) requires an application for a grant under 
114(b) to be submitted in such form and contain such 
information as the Attorney General may prescribe by rule.
    Section 114(h) requires each program, project, or activity 
funded under this section to contain a monitoring component, 
which shall be developed pursuant to rules made by the Attorney 
General.
    Section 114(i) permits the Attorney General, as a result of 
monitoring under section 114(h) or otherwise, to revoke or 
suspend funding of a grant made under the Byrne grant program 
or under section 114(b) if the Attorney General determines that 
the grant is not in substantial compliance with the 
requirements of this section.
    Section 114(j) defines for the purposes of this section the 
term ``civilian review board.''
    Section 114(k) authorizes an appropriation to the Attorney 
General of $25M for Fiscal Year 2021 to carry out the grant 
program authorized under section 114(b).
    Section 115. Attorney General to Conduct Study. Section 
115(a)(1) requires the Attorney General to 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 local internal affairs officer, 
or review board on the investigative integrity and prosecution 
of law enforcement misconduct, including pre-interview warnings 
and termination policies. As part of the study, the Attorney 
General is required to conduct an initial analysis as described 
in section 115(a)(2) followed by a nationwide data collection 
as described in section 115(a)(3). Section 115(b)(1) requires 
the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress and the 
public 120 days after enactment containing the results of the 
initial analysis prescribed by this section and identify the 
jurisdictions for which the study is to be conducted. Section 
115(b)(2) requires the Attorney General not less than 2 years 
after enactment to submit a report to Congress containing the 
results of the data collection prescribed under this section 
and publish the report in the Federal Register.
    Section 116. Authorization of Appropriations. Section 116 
authorizes for fiscal year 2021, in addition to any other sums 
authorized to be appropriated: (1) $25M for additional expenses 
related to the enforcement of 34 U.S.C. 12601, criminal 
enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242, and administrative 
enforcement by the Department of Justice of such sections, 
including compliance with consent decrees or judgments; and (2) 
$3.3M for additional expenses related to conflict resolution by 
the Department of Justice's Community Relations Service.
    Section 117. National Task Force on Law Enforcement 
Oversight. Section 117(a) establishes within the Department of 
Justice a Task Force on Law Enforcement Oversight. Section 
117(b) requires that the Task Force be composed of individuals 
appointed by the Attorney General who is required to appoint 
not less than 1 individual from the DOJ components described 
under this section. Section 117(c) outlines the powers and 
duties of the Task Force and requires that it 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. Section 117(d) authorizes 
an appropriation of $5M for each fiscal year to carry out this 
section.
    Section 118. Federal Data Collection Law Enforcement 
Practices. Section 118(a) requires each federal, state, tribal, 
and local law enforcement agency to report data of the 
practices enumerated in section 118(c) of that agency to the 
Attorney General.
    Section 118(b) requires that for each practice enumerated 
in section 118(c), the reporting law enforcement agency must 
provide a breakdown of the number 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.
    Section 118(c) enumerates the practices to be reported to 
the Attorney General.
    Section 118(d) requires that each law enforcement agency 
required to report data under this section must maintain 
records relating to any matter reported for 4 years after the 
creation of the records.
    Section 118(e) enacts a penalty on states for failing to 
report as required under this section. A state shall not 
receive any amount that would otherwise be allocated to that 
state under 34 U.S.C. 10156(a) or any amount from any other DOJ 
law enforcement assistance program unless the state has assured 
to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the state and 
each of its local law enforcement agencies is in substantial 
compliance with the requirements of this section.
    Section 118(f) authorizes the Attorney General to prescribe 
regulations to carry out this section.

              Title II--Policing Transparency Through Data


                    SUBTITLE A--MISCONDUCT REGISTRY

    Section 201. Establishment of National Police Misconduct 
Registry. Section 201(a) requires the Attorney General not less 
than 180 days after enactment of this Act to establish a 
National Police Misconduct Registry to be compiled and 
maintained by the Department of Justice.
    Section 201(b) sets forth the contents of the registry. 
With respect to all federal and local law enforcement officers, 
the registry must contain:
    (1) each complaint filed against a law enforcement officer 
aggregated by (A) complaints found credible or that resulted in 
disciplinary action against the officer; (B) complaints that 
are pending review; and (C) complaints for which the officer 
was exonerated or that were determined to be unfounded or not 
sustained. All complaints must be 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, including the reason for each 
termination, 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.
    Section 201(c) requires that the head of each federal law 
enforcement agency shall submit to the Attorney General the 
information described in Section 201(b) not later than 1 year 
after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 6 months 
thereafter.
    Section 201(d) requires a state that receives funds under 
the Byrne grant program to submit the information described 
under 201(b) for the state and each local law enforcement 
agency within the state to the Attorney General every 180 days 
beginning in the first fiscal year that begins after the date 
that is one year after the enactment of this Act and each 
fiscal year thereafter in which the state receives funds under 
the Byrne grant program.
    Section 201(e) requires the Attorney General to make the 
registry available to the public on a website of the Attorney 
General in a manner that allows the public to search an 
individual law enforcement officer's records of misconduct as 
described in Section 201(b) involving the use of force or 
racial profiling. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed 
to supersede the requirements or limitations under the Privacy 
Act of 1974.
    Section 202. Certification Requirements for Hiring of Law 
Enforcement Officers. Section 202(a) states that 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 that 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 or decertification program for 
the purposes of employment as a law enforcement officer in that 
state or unit of local government; and (2) submitted to the 
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.
    Section 202(b) requires the Attorney General to make 
available to law enforcement agencies all information in the 
registry under section 201 for purposes of compliance with 
certification and decertification programs described in section 
202(a) and considering applications of employment.
    Section 202 (c) authorizes the Attorney General to make 
rules to carry out section 202 and section 201, including 
uniform reporting standards.

 SUBTITLE B--POLICE REPORTING INFORMATION DATA AND EVIDENCE (PRIDE) ACT

    Section 221. Short title. Section 221 sets forth the short 
title of this subtitle as the ``Police Reporting Information, 
Data, and Evidence Act of 2020'' or ``PRIDE Act of 2020''.
    Section 222. Definitions. Section 222 sets forth 
definitions of various terms used in this subtitle.
    Section 223. Use of Force Reporting. Section 223(a) 
requires any state or Indian tribe receiving Byrne grant funds 
to report to the Attorney General on a quarterly basis, any 
incident involving use of deadly force or shooting against a 
civilian by a state, local, or tribal law enforcement officer 
employed by the grant recipient jurisdiction, any incident 
involving the death or arrest of an officer, any incident 
involving use of force by or against an officer, any death in 
custody, and any use of force in arrests and bookings. Also 
requires a grant recipient to establish a system and policies 
to ensure that all use of force incidents are reported by 
state, local, and tribal law enforcement officers and that they 
submit to the Attorney General a plan for the required data 
collection.
    The report must contain at least the following information: 
(1) the national origin, race, sex, ethnicity, age, disability, 
English language proficiency, and housing status of each 
civilian against whom state, local, or tribal law enforcement 
officer used force; (2) the date, time, and location, including 
whether on school grounds, and zip code of the incident and 
whether the jurisdiction allows for open-carry or concealed-
carry of a firearm; (3) whether the civilian was armed and, if 
so, the type of weapon the civilian had; (4) the type of force 
and weapons used against either the officer or the civilian; 
(5) the reason force was used; (6) a description of injuries 
sustained because of the incident; (7) the number of officers 
involved in the incident; and (9) a brief description of the 
circumstances surrounding the incident. A grant recipient 
jurisdiction is not required to include in this report an 
incident reported pursuant to 34 USC 12105(a)(2)). Each law 
enforcement agency reporting data under this section must 
maintain records relating to any reportable matter for a 
minimum of 4 years. In addition, prior to submitting a report, 
the jurisdiction must compare the information with publicly 
available sources and revise the report if any incident is 
determined to be missing.
    Section 223(a) further requires that each grant recipient 
jurisdiction must conduct an annual audit of its use-of-force 
incident reporting system and submit a report on the audit to 
the Attorney General.
    Section 223(b) reduces by up to 10 percent any amount of 
Byrne grant funds that a jurisdiction would have received 
should it fail to comply with the reporting requirements of 
Section 223(a). That money must instead be reallocated to other 
jurisdictions that have complied with those requirements. A 
grant recipient jurisdiction must also ensure that schools and 
local education agencies provide the required information to 
the jurisdiction regarding school resources officers.
    Section 223(c) requires the Attorney General to publish and 
make publicly available a report containing the data required 
to be reported to the Attorney General under Section 223, 
subject to privacy protections, and further requires the 
Attorney General to issue guidance on best practices related to 
establishing standard data collection systems for the required 
information.
    Section 224. Use of Force Data Reporting. Section 224 
allows the Attorney General to make grants available to local 
law enforcement agencies to cover the costs of compliance with 
Section 223, public awareness campaigns on use of force by or 
against law enforcement officers, and use of force training for 
law enforcement agencies and personnel. To be eligible for a 
grant under this section, the agency must be in a jurisdiction 
that receives Byrne grant funding, employ 100 or fewer 
officers, demonstrate that its use of force policy is publicly 
available, and establish and maintain a complaint system that 
meets certain requirements.
    Section 225. Compliance with Reporting Requirements. 
Section 225 requires the Attorney General to conduct an audit 
and review of the information provided by grant recipient 
jurisdictions pursuant to Section 223. Any data reported must 
be collected and reported consistent with existing Justice 
Department data collection programs regarding police-civilian 
encounters and with civil rights laws governing public 
dissemination of information. It also requires the Attorney 
General to issue guidelines for the Section 223 reporting 
requirement and to seek public comment on those guidelines 
before issuing them.
    Section 226. Federal Law Enforcement Reporting. Section 226 
requires each federal law enforcement agency to submit the 
information outlined in Section 223 to the Attorney General on 
a quarterly basis.
    Section 227. Authorization of Appropriations. Section 227 
authorizes appropriations to carry out this subtitle.

           Title III--Improving Police Training and Policies


           SUBTITLE A--END RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS PROFILING ACT

    Section 301. Short Title. Section 301 sets forth the short 
title of Subtitle A of Title III as the ``End Racial and 
Religious Profiling Act of 2020,'' or ``ERRPA.''
    Section 302. Definitions. Section 302 provides definitions 
used within ERRPA. Among other things, subsection 302(6) 
defines ``racial profiling'' to include any reliance by law 
enforcement on a person's ``actual or perceived race, 
ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, 
or sexual orientation'' in making decisions with respect to law 
enforcement activity. Section 302 provides exceptions where 
relevant and trustworthy information links a person with a 
particular characteristic described, and for purposes of tribal 
law enforcement officers making jurisdictional determinations.

                Part I--Prohibition of Racial Profiling

    Section 311. Prohibition. Section 311 prohibits all 
federal, state, and local law enforcement agents and agencies 
from engaging in racial profiling.
    Section 312. Enforcement. Section 312 provides a cause of 
action for the United States or any injured individual to 
enforce this prohibition. It also provides that a disparate 
impact on individuals with characteristics defined in 
subsection 302(6) constitutes prima facie evidence of racial 
profiling. Finally, it permits prevailing plaintiffs other than 
the United States to obtain attorney's fees.

    Part II--Programs to Eliminate Racial Profiling by Federal Law 
                          Enforcement Agencies

    Section 321. Policies to Eliminate Racial Profiling. 
Section 321 requires federal law enforcement agencies to 
maintain policies prohibiting racial profiling, including by 
providing adequate training, collecting relevant data in 
accordance with Section 341, and implementing procedures to 
investigate and respond to allegations of racial profiling.

Part III--Programs to Eliminate Racial Profiling by State and Local Law 
                          Enforcement Agencies

    Section 331. Policies Required for Grants. Section 331 
requires any state or local entity applying for a grant under 
any covered program (defined in subsection 302(1) to include 
any Byrne grant program or any COPS grant program) to certify 
that the recipient maintains adequate policies prohibiting 
racial profiling. Such policies must, among other things, 
provide for adequate training and collection of relevant data 
in accordance with Section 341, and include participation in a 
complaint or audit program to investigate and respond to 
allegations of racial profiling.
    Section 332. Involvement of Attorney General. Section 332 
requires the Attorney General within six months of enactment to 
issue regulations regarding complaint procedures and auditing 
programs to respond to allegations of racial profiling. It also 
directs the Attorney General to withhold funds from grant 
recipients that fail to comply and requires the Attorney 
General to create a mechanism by which private parties may 
present evidence that a recipient is not in compliance.
    Section 333. Data Collection Demonstration Project. Section 
333 creates a $5 million grant program for technical assistance 
for up to five recipients to engage in data collection 
regarding law enforcement agencies' ``hit rates'' (defined in 
subsection 302(3) as the percentage of stops and searches that 
yield contraband), disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national 
origin, gender, and religion. This section also authorizes 
$500,000 for the Attorney General to conduct an evaluation of 
the data collected by grantees.
    Section 334. Development of Best Practices. Section 334 
requires applications for Byrne grants to include an assurance 
that the applicant will use at least 10 percent of the grant 
award to develop best practices to eliminate racial profiling.
    Section 335. Authorization of Appropriations. Section 335 
authorizes funds to the Attorney General as necessary to 
implement this part.

                        Part IV--Data Collection

    Section 341. Attorney General to Issue Regulations. Section 
341 requires the Attorney General within six months of 
enactment to issue regulations for the collection of relevant 
data from federal, state, and local law enforcement entities, 
as provided in sections 321 and 331. It requires, among other 
things, that the regulations provide for collection of data 
regarding routine and spontaneous investigatory activities; 
that the data be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, national 
origin, gender, disability, and religion; and that the data 
contain sufficient detail to permit an analysis of whether a 
law enforcement agency is engaging in racial profiling. It also 
requires law enforcement agencies to maintain this data for at 
least four years and requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics 
to analyze the data for certain statistical disparities and to 
publish an annual report of its findings, beginning three years 
after enactment.
    Section 342. Publication of Data. Section 342 requires the 
Bureau of Justice Statistics to provide the data collected 
under this subtitle to Congress and to the public, together 
with the report required under Section 341, excluding any 
personally identifiable information.
    Section 343. Limitations on Publication of Data. Section 
343 prohibits disclosure of the names or identifying 
information of law enforcement agents, complainants, or other 
individuals except under certain specified circumstances. It 
exempts this information from disclosure under 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

    Section 351. Attorney General to Issue Regulations and 
Reports. Section 351 requires the Attorney General to issue 
such other regulations as may be necessary and requires the 
Attorney General to issue an annual report to Congress on 
racial profiling, beginning two years after enactment. The 
report must include, among other things, a summary of the data 
collected by the Attorney General from federal, state, and 
local law enforcement agencies, the status of policies to 
eliminate racial profiling, and a description of any other 
policies the Attorney General believes would facilitate the 
elimination of racial profiling.

                     SUBTITLE B--ADDITIONAL REFORMS

    Section 361. Training on racial bias and duty to intervene. 
Section 361(a) Requires the Attorney General to establish a 
training program for law enforcement officers to cover racial 
profiling, implicit bias, and procedural justice. It also 
requires the Attorney General to establish a duty for federal 
law enforcement officers to intervene in cases where another 
officer uses excessive force and requires training program for 
this duty to intervene. Section 361(b) requires each federal 
law enforcement officer to complete the training programs 
established under subsection (a). Section 361(c) conditions 
Byrne grants for state and local governments on those 
jurisdictions requiring law enforcement officers to complete 
the training programs established under subsection (a). Section 
361(d) allows grants for training programs for law enforcement 
officers on use of force and duty to intervene.
    Section 362. Ban on No-Knock Warrants in Drug Cases. 
Section 362(a) amends the Controlled Substances Act to prohibit 
no-knock warrants by federal law enforcement officers in a drug 
case. Section 362(b) conditions COPS grants to state and local 
governments on their having in effect a law that prohibits the 
issuance of a no-knock warrant in a drug case. Section 362(c) 
defines ``no-knock warrant'' as a warrant that allows a law 
enforcement officer to enter a property without announcing the 
presence of the officer or the intention of the officer to 
enter the property.
    Section 363. Incentivizing Banning of Chokeholds and 
Carotid Holds. Section 363(a) defines ``chokehold or carotid 
hold'' to mean the application of any pressure to the throat or 
windpipe, the use of maneuvers restricting blood or oxygen flow 
to the brain, or carotid artery restraints that prevent or 
hinder breathing or reduce intake of air. Section 363(b) 
conditions Byrne grants and COPS grants for state and local 
governments on that state and local government having in effect 
a law prohibiting law enforcement officers from using a 
chokehold or carotid hold. Section 363(c) amends 18 U.S.C. 
Sec.  242 to define ``chokehold or carotid hold'' as a 
``punishment, pain, or penalty.'' Section 242 makes it a 
federal crime to, among other things, willfully subject someone 
to such ``punishments, pains, or penalties.''
    Section 364. PEACE Act. Section 364(a) sets forth the short 
title of this section as the ``Police Exercising Absolute Care 
with Everyone Act of 2020'' or ``PEACE Act of 2020.'' Section 
364(b) establishes a use-of-force standard for federal law 
enforcement officers. Section 364(b)(1) provides definitions of 
various terms as used in this section. Section 364(b)(2) 
prohibits a federal law enforcement officer from using less 
lethal force unless such force is necessary and proportional in 
order to effectuate an arrest of a person who the officer has 
probable cause to believe has committed a crime and reasonable 
alternatives to the less lethal force have been exhausted.
    Section 364(b)(3) prohibits a federal law enforcement 
officer from using deadly force unless the use of deadly force 
is necessary as a last resort to prevent imminent and serious 
bodily injury, the use of such force does not create a 
substantial risk of injury to a third person, and reasonable 
alternatives have been exhausted.
    Section 364(b)(4) requires a federal law enforcement 
officer, when feasible, to identify himself or herself as a 
federal law enforcement officer and give a verbal warning prior 
to using force. The warning must include a request that the 
suspect surrender and notify that person that the officer will 
use force if the person resists arrest or flees.
    Section 364(b)(5) requires the Attorney General to issue 
guidance to federal law enforcement agencies on types of less 
lethal and deadly force prohibited by this section and ways the 
officer can assess whether use of force is appropriate and 
necessary and use the least amount of force when interacting 
with certain types of individuals. Section 364(b)(6) requires 
the Attorney General to provide training for federal law 
enforcement officers on how to interact with these categories 
of individuals.
    Section 364(b)(7) disallows a federal law enforcement 
officer to raise the justification defense in a civil rights 
prosecution under 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  1111 or 1112 if that 
officer's use of force violates the standards set forth in 
Section 364(b) or the officer's gross negligence contributed to 
the necessity to use such force.
    Section 364(c) conditions a state or local government's 
receipt of Byrne grant funds on the jurisdiction having in 
effect a law setting forth the same use-of-force standards 
provided in Section 364(b). A jurisdiction that has had funds 
withheld and then subsequently enacts a law conforming with 
this requirement and demonstrates substantial efforts to 
enforce such a law, would once again be eligible in the follow 
fiscal year the total amount of funds that were withheld, 
subject to a 5-fiscal-year cap. Finally, the Attorney General 
is required to issue guidance to state and local governments on 
the criteria for determining whether a jurisdiction has enacted 
law conforming with this section.
    Section 365. Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act. Section 
365(a) contains findings regarding the transfer of military 
equipment to local law enforcement agencies. Section 365(b) 
restricts the Defense Department program allowing transfer of 
equipment to local law enforcement agencies by striking 
``counterdrug'' and ``border security activities'' as 
permissible uses for such property. It also adds new conditions 
for transfer of such property to a local law enforcement 
agency, including that the recipient submits to the Department 
a description of how it expects to use the property; the 
recipient certifies that if the property exceed the recipient's 
needs, it will return the property to the Department; the 
recipient certifies that it has notified the local community of 
the request for the property; and the recipient has received 
the approval of the local governing body to acquire the 
property sought from the Department. Section 365(b) also 
strikes the existing preference for counterdrug, 
counterterrorism, and border security uses by the recipient 
agency.
    Section 365(b) also requires the Secretary of Defense to 
certify annually that each recipient agency has provided the 
Secretary a documented accounting for all controlled property, 
including arms and ammunition, and carried out the bill's other 
certification requirements. It also requires the Secretary to 
submit an annual report to Congress describing property to be 
transferred with a certification that the transfer will not be 
unlawful. It also prohibits certain types of items from being 
transferred, including controlled firearms, ammunition, grenade 
launchers, grenades, and explosives; controlled vehicles, 
trucks, highly mobile multi-wheeled vehicles, mine-resistant 
ambush-protected vehicles; drones; controlled aircraft that are 
combat configured or have no commercial use; silencers; and 
long-range acoustic devices. It prohibits the Secretary from 
requiring that a recipient agency demonstrate the use of any 
small arms or ammunition, and clarifies that the bill's various 
limitations also apply to property previously transferred by 
the Defense Department to an agency from that agency to 
another. This section, however, allows the Secretary to waive 
the annual certification requirement under certain emergency 
circumstances. It also prohibits the extension of the military 
property transfer program unless the Secretary certifies to 
Congress that: each recipient of controlled property under the 
program has demonstrated complete accountability for all such 
property or has been suspended from the program and also 
certifies that various other actions related to accounting for 
such property have been taken, and that any recipient for which 
100 percent of the property was not accounted for has been 
suspended from the program. Also, no recipient agency may take 
ownership of any property transferred under the surplus 
military property program. Finally, Section 365 requires the 
Secretary to make a number of reports to Congress regarding 
various aspects of the property transfer program.
    Section 366. Public Safety Innovation Grants. Section 
366(a) amends the Byrne grant program statute by adding a new 
provision concerning local task forces on public safety 
innovation. That provision states that a law enforcement 
program eligible to receive Byrne grants 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. This section also defines ``local 
task force on public safety innovation'' to mean 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.''
    Section 366(b) adds a requirement of a report on best 
practices for crisis intervention as part of a program 
assessment of crisis intervention teams.
    Section 366(c) adds as a permissible use of COPS grants the 
recruitment, hiring, retention and training of law enforcement 
officers who live in or are willing to relocate to (1) 
communities where relations between police and community 
residents are poor or where there is a high incidence of crime 
and (2) are the communities or close to the communities where 
these officers serve. Such grants may also be used to collect 
data on the number of officers willing to relocate to 
communities where they serve and whether such relocations have 
impacted crime in those communities, and to develop and 
publicly report strategies and timelines for recruiting, 
hiring, promoting, and retaining a diverse and inclusive law 
enforcement workforce.

                SUBTITLE C--LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY CAMERAS


          Part I--Federal Police Camera and Accountability Act

    Section 371. Short Title. Section 371 sets forth the short 
title of this part as the ``Federal Police Camera and 
Accountability Act.''
    Section 372. Requirements for Federal Law Enforcement 
Officers Regarding the Use of Body Cameras. Section 372(a) sets 
forth definitions for various terms used in this part. Section 
372(b)(1) requires federal law enforcement officers to wear a 
body camera. Section 372(b)(2) sets forth the minimum 
requirements for the camera. Section 372(c) sets forth the 
requirement that the body camera's video and audio functions be 
activated whenever a federal law enforcement officer responds 
to a service call or at the initiation of any other law 
enforcement or investigative stop involving a member of the 
public, except when an imminent threat to the officer's life or 
safety makes activating the camera impossible or dangerous. 
Under such circumstances, the officer must activate the camera 
at the first reasonable opportunity. The officer may deactivate 
the camera after the stop is concluded and the officer leaves 
the scene.
    Section 372(d) requires a federal law enforcement officer 
to notify a subject of the recording that he or she is being 
recorded by a body camera as close to the inception of the stop 
as reasonably possible.
    Section 372(e) outlines a number of additional requirements 
with respect to a federal law enforcement officer's use of a 
body camera with respect to giving notice to a subject of the 
camera recording and an opportunity for the subject to have the 
camera discontinue recording. Section 372(f) requires a 
recording of each offer to discontinue body camera use.
    Section 372(g) prohibits the use of body cameras to 
``gather intelligence information based on First Amendment 
protected speech, association, or religion, or to record 
activity that is unrelated to'' a legitimate law enforcement 
activity, and the body camera may not be equipped with or 
employ any real time facial recognition technologies.
    Section 372(h) outlines exceptions to the requirement that 
a federal law enforcement officer wear a body camera.
    Section 372(i) outlines footage retention requirements for 
body cameras. It requires that the agency employing an officer 
retain footage for 6 months after it is recorded, and then to 
delete it permanently. During this 6-month period, certain 
persons have a right to inspect the footage, including anyone 
who is a subject of the footage or their legal counsel; the 
parent or legal guardian of a minor subject or their legal 
counsel; the spouse, next of kin, or legal authorized designee 
of a deceased subject of the footage or their legal counsel; 
the officer whose body camera recorded the footage or their 
legal counsel; the officer's superior officer; or any defense 
counsel who claims to have a reasonable basis for believing 
that the footage contains exculpatory evidence. The right to 
review the footage does not include the right to possess a copy 
except when authorized.
    Section 372(j) outlines additional retention and deletion 
requirements for body camera footage, including minimum 3-year 
retention if the footage captures any use of force or a stop 
about which the subject of the footage has made a complaint. 
The footage must be retained for at least 3 years when the 
footage has been requested by an officer under certain 
circumstances or by the subject of the footage, a parent or 
legal guardian of a minor who is a subject of the footage, or a 
deceased subject's spouse, next of kin, or legally authorized 
designee.
    Section 372(k) provides that any subject of footage, parent 
or guardian of a minor subject, or deceased subject's next of 
kin or legally authorized designee must be allowed to review 
the specific footage to make a determination whether to request 
a 3-year retention of the footage.
    Section 372(l) provides that all video footage of an 
interaction or event must be provided to any member of the 
public making a request for it if the interaction or event is 
identified with reasonable specificity. This section also 
outlines a number of exceptions to this rule and prioritizes 
requests for footage where the subject is killed, shot, or 
grievously injured. It also allows for the use of redaction 
technology to protect personal privacy of persons appearing in 
the video footage.
    Section 372(m) prohibits withholding body camera footage 
from the public because it is an investigatory record if any 
person under investigation is a police officer or other law 
enforcement employee and the video relates to their official 
capacity conduct. Section 372(n) provides that any footage 
retained for six months as required by this part shall not be 
admissible as evidence in a criminal or civil proceeding. 
Section 372(o) prohibits public disclosure of body camera 
footage unless expressly authorized by law. Sections 372(p) and 
(q) place limitations on the use of body camera footage. 
Section 372(r) prohibits a third-party agent who maintains body 
camera footage from independently accessing, viewing, or 
altering footage except to delete footage as required. Section 
372(s) outlines disciplinary procedures for any federal law 
enforcement officer or employee who fails to follow the 
requirements regarding body camera recording or footage 
retention. Section 372(t) provides that where an officer is 
involved in, a witness to, or in viewable range of a use of 
force by another officer that results in death, a firearm 
discharge results in injury, or another officer's conduct 
becomes the subject of a criminal investigation, the agency 
must take possession of the camera and any data on it, a copy 
of the data must be made, and the data must be made publicly 
available according to the procedures outlined in Section 
372(l). Section 372(u) limits footage that violates any law may 
not be offered as evidence in any criminal or civil action 
against a member of the public. Section 372(v) requires public 
disclosure of any agency policy or guidance regarding the use 
of body cameras or video footage. Section 372(w) is a rule of 
construction providing that nothing in this part shall be 
construed to preempt laws governing handling evidence in 
criminal investigation and prosecutions.
    Section 373. Patrol Vehicles With In-Car Video Recording 
Cameras. Section 373(a) provides definitions to be used in this 
section. Section 373(b) requires that each federal law 
enforcement agency install in-car video camera recording 
equipment in all patrol vehicles with certain recording 
capabilities. It requires that the equipment be capable of 
recording for 10 hours or more and that it record certain 
specified activities, including whenever a patrol vehicle is 
assigned to patrol duty, certain activities outside a patrol 
vehicle, and inside the vehicle when transporting an arrestee 
or when the officer reasonably believes that recording may 
assist with prosecution, enhance safety, or for some other 
lawful purpose. Section 373(b)(3) requires a federal law 
enforcement officer to start recording at the start of an 
enforcement or investigative stop until the stop is completed 
and either the officer or the subject has left the scene or 
when the patrol vehicle emergency lights are activated. Section 
373(c) requires that in-car camera footage must be retained for 
at least 90 days and prohibits footage from being altered or 
deleted during that time. Section 373(d) requires that audio or 
video recordings be made available to the public under 
administrative procedures. Finally, Section 373(e) requires an 
agency to ensure proper maintenance and care of in-car cameras.
    Section 374. Facial Recognition Technology. Section 374 
prohibits a camera or recording device required or authorized 
by this part from being equipped with or employing real time 
facial recognition technology and also prohibits footage from 
such camera or recording device from being subjected to such 
technology.
    Section 375. GAO Study. Section 375 requires the GAO to 
conduct a study within one year of the date of enactment on 
federal law enforcement officer training, vehicle pursuits, use 
of force, and interaction with citizens, and to submit such 
report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the House 
Oversight and Reform Committee, and the Senate Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
    Section 376. Regulations. Section 376 requires the Attorney 
General to issue regulations to carry out this part.
    Section 377. Rule of Construction. Section 377 provides 
that nothing in this part be construed to impose any 
requirement on a federal law enforcement officer outside of the 
officer's course of duty.

                       Part 2--Police Camera Act

    Section 381. Short title. Section 381 sets forth the short 
title of the part as the ``Police Creating Accountability by 
Making Effective Recording Available Act of 2020'' or the 
``Police CAMERA Act of 2020.''
    Section 382. Law Enforcement Body-Worn Camera Requirements. 
Section 382(a) adds a new Byrne grant requirement for a state 
or local government seeking a grant provide an assurance that 
for each fiscal year covered by the application, the 
jurisdiction will use at least 5 percent of the grant award for 
the fiscal year to develop policies and protocols to comply 
with the body camera requirements in Section 382(b).
    Section 382(b) adds a new ``Part OO'' to Title I of the 
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to govern 
use of Byrne grant funds regarding body-worn cameras by state 
and local law enforcement. It provides, in proposed new Section 
3051, that funds provided pursuant to the requirement outlined 
in Section 382(a) of the bill must be used to purchase or lease 
body-worn cameras for use by state, local, and tribal law 
enforcement officers, for expenses related to a body-worn 
camera program, and to implement certain policies and 
procedures. It also prohibits the use of expenses for facial 
recognition technology.
    The required policies and procedures for a grant for body-
worn cameras include adoption of data collection and retention 
protocols before the use of body cameras; the development of 
policies and protocols, with community input, for safe and 
effective use of cameras; secure storage, handling, and 
destruction of recorded data; the protection of privacy rights; 
the release of recorded data from a body camera in accordance 
with state open records laws; and making recorded data 
available to prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other court 
officers. The bill also specifies the issues that the data 
collection and retention protocols must address, including 
required uses, such as for the collection and reporting of 
statistical data on use of force incidents disaggregated by 
race, ethnicity, gender, and age of the victim, the number of 
complaints filed against law enforcement officers, the 
disposition of such complaints, and any other statistical 
evidence. The protocols must also allow an individual to file a 
complaint relating to an improper use of body cameras. Proposed 
Section 3051 also limits use of body camera footage for officer 
misconduct investigation to those cases where there is a 
reasonable suspicion that the recording contains evidence of a 
crime or for limited training purposes and prohibits transfer 
of any recorded data by a grant recipient to another law 
enforcement or intelligence agency, with certain exceptions for 
criminal investigations and civil rights claims.
    Proposed Section 3051 requires an audit of the use of funds 
for body-worn cameras and the development of policies and 
protocols for their use by grant recipients and requires each 
grant recipient to file a report with the Director of the 
Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management. The Director, in 
turn, must evaluate the policies and protocols of grantees and 
take steps to ensure compliance with program requirements.
    New proposed Section 3052 requires the Director to 
establish a training toolkit for body-worn cameras. Section 
3053 requires the Director to conduct a study within 2 years of 
the date of enactment of this part on the efficacy of body-worn 
cameras in deterring police excessive force; the impacts of 
body-worn cameras on police accountability and transparency, on 
responses to and adjudications of excessive force complaints, 
and on evidence collection for criminal investigations; the 
effects of body-worn cameras on the safety of both law 
enforcement officers and the public; and on various other 
issues relating to privacy, individual constitutional rights, 
limitations on facial recognition technology, public access to 
body camera footage, and law enforcement body camera use and 
training. The Director must submit a report to Congress on the 
study, including any policy recommendations, within 180 days 
after the study is completed.

             Title IV--Justice for Victims of Lynching Act

    Section 401. Short title. Section 401 sets forth the short 
title of Title IV as the ``Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act.''
    Section 402. Findings. Section 402 contains findings 
regarding lynching.
    Section 403. Lynching. Section 403 adds at the end of title 
18, chapter 13 of the United States Code a new Section 250, 
making it a crime to conspire with another person to violate 
existing federal hate crimes statutes.

                   Title V--Miscellaneous Provisions

    Section 501. Severability. Section 501 provides that if any 
provision of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act or 
particular application of it is held to be unconstitutional, 
the remainder of the Act or any other application shall not be 
affected.
    Section 502. Savings Clause. Section 502 provides that 
nothing in the Act shall be construed: (1) to limit remedies 
under 42 U.S.C. 1983 or certain other statutes; affect any laws 
that apply to an Indian Tribe because of its political status; 
or waive an Indian Tribe's sovereign immunity without the 
Tribe's consent.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, H.R. 5, as reported, are shown as follows:

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

                      TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE


PART I--CRIMES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        CHAPTER 13--CIVIL RIGHTS


Sec.
241. Conspiracy against rights.
     * * * * * * *
250. Lynching.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

  Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, 
regulation, or custom, [willfully] knowingly or recklessly 
subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, 
Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, 
privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the 
Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different 
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person 
being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are 
prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under 
this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and 
if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation 
of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, 
or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, 
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten 
years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in 
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or 
an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to 
commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be 
fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or 
for life, or both[, or may be sentenced to death]. 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. 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. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                          CHAPTER 51--HOMICIDE

Sec.
1111. Murder.
     * * * * * * *
1123. Limitation on justification defense for Federal law enforcement 
          officers.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                 REVISED STATUTES OF THE UNITED STATES



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE XXIV

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  Sec. 1979. Every person who, under color of any statute, 
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or 
Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to 
be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person 
within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any 
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution 
and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at 
law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, 
except that in any action brought against a judicial officer 
for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial 
capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a 
declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was 
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of 
Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia 
shall be considered to be a statute of the District of 
Columbia. 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--
          (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. 
        

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


         VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE XXI--STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                 Subtitle D--Police Pattern or Practice

SEC. 210401. CAUSE OF ACTION.

  (a) Unlawful Conduct.--It shall be unlawful for any 
governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person 
acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a 
pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers, by 
prosecutors, or by officials or employees of any governmental 
agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile 
justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons 
of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by 
the Constitution or laws of the United States.
  (b) Civil Action by Attorney General.--Whenever the Attorney 
General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of 
[paragraph (1)] subsection (a) has occurred, the Attorney 
General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a 
civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory 
relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
  (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).

SEC. 210402. DATA ON USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE.

  (a) Attorney General To Collect.--[The Attorney General]
          (1) Federal collection of data.--The Attorney General 
        shall, through appropriate means, acquire data about 
        the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.
          (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.
  [(b) Limitation on Use of Data.--Data acquired under this 
section 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.]
  (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.
  (c) Annual Summary.--The Attorney General shall publish an 
annual summary of the data acquired under this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


           OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE I--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


          Part E--Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant Programs

Subpart 1--Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 501. DESCRIPTION.

  (a) Grants Authorized.--
          (1) In general.--From amounts made available to carry 
        out this subpart, the Attorney General may, in 
        accordance with the formula established under section 
        505, make grants to States and units of local 
        government, for use by the State or unit of local 
        government to provide additional personnel, equipment, 
        supplies, contractual support, training, technical 
        assistance, and information systems for criminal 
        justice, including for any one or more of the following 
        programs:
                  (A) Law enforcement programs.
                  (B) Prosecution and court programs.
                  (C) Prevention and education programs.
                  (D) Corrections and community corrections 
                programs.
                  (E) Drug treatment and enforcement programs.
                  (F) Planning, evaluation, and technology 
                improvement programs.
                  (G) Crime victim and witness programs (other 
                than compensation).
                  (H) Mental health programs and related law 
                enforcement and corrections programs, including 
                behavioral programs and crisis intervention 
                teams.
                  (I) Training programs for law enforcement 
                officers, including training programs on use of 
                force and a duty to intervene.
          (2) Rule of construction.--Paragraph (1) shall be 
        construed to ensure that a grant under that paragraph 
        may be used for any purpose for which a grant was 
        authorized to be used under either or both of the 
        programs specified in section 500(b), as those programs 
        were in effect immediately before the enactment of this 
        paragraph.
          (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) Contracts and Subawards.--A State or unit of local 
government may, in using a grant under this subpart for 
purposes authorized by subsection (a), use all or a portion of 
that grant to contract with or make one or more subawards to 
one or more--
          (1) neighborhood or community-based organizations 
        that are private and nonprofit; or
          (2) units of local government.
  (c) Program Assessment Component; Waiver.--
          (1) Each program funded under this subpart shall 
        contain a program assessment component, developed 
        pursuant to guidelines established by the Attorney 
        General, in coordination with the National Institute of 
        Justice.
          (2) The Attorney General may waive the requirement of 
        paragraph (1) with respect to a program if, in the 
        opinion of the Attorney General, the program is not of 
        sufficient size to justify a full program assessment.
          (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.
  (d) Prohibited Uses.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
this Act, no funds provided under this subpart may be used, 
directly or indirectly, to provide any of the following 
matters:
          (1) Any security enhancements or any equipment to any 
        nongovernmental entity that is not engaged in criminal 
        justice or public safety.
          (2) Unless the Attorney General certifies that 
        extraordinary and exigent circumstances exist that make 
        the use of such funds to provide such matters essential 
        to the maintenance of public safety and good order--
                  (A) vehicles (excluding police cruisers), 
                vessels (excluding police boats), or aircraft 
                (excluding police helicopters);
                  (B) luxury items;
                  (C) real estate;
                  (D) construction projects (other than penal 
                or correctional institutions); or
                  (E) any similar matters.
  (e) Administrative Costs.--Not more than 10 percent of a 
grant made under this subpart may be used for costs incurred to 
administer such grant.
  (f) Period.--The period of a grant made under this subpart 
shall be four years, except that renewals and extensions beyond 
that period may be granted at the discretion of the Attorney 
General.
  (g) Rule of Construction.--Subparagraph (d)(1) shall not be 
construed to prohibit the use, directly or indirectly, of funds 
provided under this subpart to provide security at a public 
event, such as a political convention or major sports event, so 
long as such security is provided under applicable laws and 
procedures.

SEC. 502. APPLICATIONS.

  (a) In General.--To request a grant under this subpart, the 
chief executive officer of a State or unit of local government 
shall submit an application to the Attorney General within 120 
days after the date on which funds to carry out this subpart 
are appropriated for a fiscal year, in such form as the 
Attorney General may require. Such application shall include 
the following:
          (1) A certification that Federal funds made available 
        under this subpart will not be used to supplant State 
        or local funds, but will be used to increase the 
        amounts of such funds that would, in the absence of 
        Federal funds, be made available for law enforcement 
        activities.
          (2) An assurance that, not fewer than 30 days before 
        the application (or any amendment to the application) 
        was submitted to the Attorney General, the application 
        (or amendment) was submitted for review to the 
        governing body of the State or unit of local government 
        (or to an organization designated by that governing 
        body).
          (3) An assurance that, before the application (or any 
        amendment to the application) was submitted to the 
        Attorney General--
                  (A) the application (or amendment) was made 
                public; and
                  (B) an opportunity to comment on the 
                application (or amendment) was provided to 
                citizens and to neighborhood or community-based 
                organizations, to the extent applicable law or 
                established procedure makes such an opportunity 
                available.
          (4) An assurance that, for each fiscal year covered 
        by an application, the applicant shall maintain and 
        report such data, records, and information 
        (programmatic and financial) as the Attorney General 
        may reasonably require.
          (5) A certification, made in a form acceptable to the 
        Attorney General and executed by the chief executive 
        officer of the applicant (or by another officer of the 
        applicant, if qualified under regulations promulgated 
        by the Attorney General), that--
                  (A) the programs to be funded by the grant 
                meet all the requirements of this subpart;
                  (B) all the information contained in the 
                application is correct;
                  (C) there has been appropriate coordination 
                with affected agencies; and
                  (D) the applicant will comply with all 
                provisions of this subpart and all other 
                applicable Federal laws.
          (6) A comprehensive Statewide plan detailing how 
        grants received under this section will be used to 
        improve the administration of the criminal justice 
        system, which shall--
                  (A) be designed in consultation with local 
                governments, and representatives of all 
                segments of the criminal justice system, 
                including judges, prosecutors, law enforcement 
                personnel, corrections personnel, and providers 
                of indigent defense services, victim services, 
                juvenile justice delinquency prevention 
                programs, community corrections, and reentry 
                services;
                  (B) include a description of how the State 
                will allocate funding within and among each of 
                the uses described in subparagraphs (A) through 
                (G) of section 501(a)(1);
                  (C) describe the process used by the State 
                for gathering evidence-based data and 
                developing and using evidence-based and 
                evidence-gathering approaches in support of 
                funding decisions;
                  (D) describe the barriers at the State and 
                local level for accessing data and implementing 
                evidence-based approaches to preventing and 
                reducing crime and recidivism; and
                  (E) be updated every 5 years, with annual 
                progress reports that--
                          (i) address changing circumstances in 
                        the State, if any;
                          (ii) describe how the State plans to 
                        adjust funding within and among each of 
                        the uses described in subparagraphs (A) 
                        through (G) of section 501(a)(1);
                          (iii) provide an ongoing assessment 
                        of need;
                          (iv) discuss the accomplishment of 
                        goals identified in any plan previously 
                        prepared under this paragraph; and
                          (v) reflect how the plan influenced 
                        funding decisions in the previous year.
          (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.
          (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.
          (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.
          (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) Technical Assistance.--
          (1) Strategic planning.--Not later than 90 days after 
        the date of enactment of this subsection, the Attorney 
        General shall begin to provide technical assistance to 
        States and local governments requesting support to 
        develop and implement the strategic plan required under 
        subsection (a)(6). The Attorney General may enter into 
        agreements with 1 or more non-governmental 
        organizations to provide technical assistance and 
        training under this paragraph.
          (2) Protection of constitutional rights.--Not later 
        than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
        subsection, the Attorney General shall begin to provide 
        technical assistance to States and local governments, 
        including any agent thereof with responsibility for 
        administration of justice, requesting support to meet 
        the obligations established by the Sixth Amendment to 
        the Constitution of the United States, which shall 
        include--
                  (A) public dissemination of practices, 
                structures, or models for the administration of 
                justice consistent with the requirements of the 
                Sixth Amendment; and
                  (B) assistance with adopting and implementing 
                a system for the administration of justice 
                consistent with the requirements of the Sixth 
                Amendment.
          (3) Authorization of appropriations.--For each of 
        fiscal years 2017 through 2021, of the amounts 
        appropriated to carry out this subpart, not less than 
        $5,000,000 and not more than $10,000,000 shall be used 
        to carry out this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   PART Q--PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMMUNITY POLICING; ``COPS ON THE BEAT''

SEC. 1701. AUTHORITY TO MAKE PUBLIC SAFETY AND COMMUNITY POLICING 
                    GRANTS.

  (a) Grant Authorization.--The Attorney General shall carry 
out a single grant program under which the Attorney General 
makes grants to States, units of local government, Indian 
tribal governments, other public and private entities, and 
multi-jurisdictional or regional consortia for the purposes 
described in subsection (b).
  (b) uses of grant amounts.--The purposes for which grants 
made under subsection (a) may be made are--
          (1) to rehire law enforcement officers who have been 
        laid off as a result of State, tribal, or local budget 
        reductions for deployment in community-oriented 
        policing;
          (2) to hire and train new, additional career law 
        enforcement officers for deployment in community-
        oriented policing across the Nation, including by 
        prioritizing the hiring and training of veterans (as 
        defined in section 101 of title 38, United States 
        Code);
          (3) to procure equipment, technology, or support 
        systems, or pay overtime, to increase the number of 
        officers deployed in community-oriented policing;
          (4) to award grants to pay for offices hired to 
        perform intelligence, anti-terror, or homeland security 
        duties;
          (5) to increase the number of law enforcement 
        officers involved in activities that are focused on 
        interaction with members of the community on proactive 
        crime control and prevention by redeploying officers to 
        such activities;
          (6) to provide specialized training to law 
        enforcement officers to enhance their conflict 
        resolution, mediation, problem solving, service, and 
        other skills needed to work in partnership with members 
        of the community;
          (7) to increase police participation in 
        multidisciplinary early intervention teams;
          (8) to develop new technologies, including 
        interoperable communications technologies, modernized 
        criminal record technology, and forensic technology, to 
        assist State, tribal, and local law enforcement 
        agencies in reorienting the emphasis of their 
        activities from reacting to crime to preventing crime 
        and to train law enforcement officers to use such 
        technologies;
          (9) to develop and implement innovative programs to 
        permit members of the community to assist State, 
        tribal, and local law enforcement agencies in the 
        prevention of crime in the community, such as a 
        citizens' police academy, including programs designed 
        to increase the level of access to the criminal justice 
        system enjoyed by victims, witnesses, and ordinary 
        citizens by establishing decentralized satellite 
        offices (including video facilities) of principal 
        criminal courts buildings;
          (10) to establish innovative programs to reduce, and 
        keep to a minimum, the amount of time that law 
        enforcement officers must be away from the community 
        while awaiting court appearances;
          (11) to establish and implement innovative programs 
        to increase and enhance proactive crime control and 
        prevention programs involving law enforcement officers 
        and young persons in the community;
          (12) to establish school-based partnerships between 
        local law enforcement agencies and local school systems 
        by using school resource officers who operate in and 
        around elementary and secondary schools to combat 
        school-related crime and disorder problems, gangs, and 
        drug activities, including the training of school 
        resource officers in the prevention of human 
        trafficking offenses;
          (13) to develop and establish new administrative and 
        managerial systems to facilitate the adoption of 
        community-oriented policing as an organization-wide 
        philosophy;
          (14) to assist a State or Indian tribe in enforcing a 
        law throughout the State or tribal community that 
        requires that a convicted sex offender register his or 
        her address with a State, tribal, or local law 
        enforcement agency and be subject to criminal 
        prosecution for failure to comply;
          (15) to establish, implement, and coordinate crime 
        prevention and control programs (involving law 
        enforcement officers working with community members) 
        with other Federal programs that serve the community 
        and community members to better address the 
        comprehensive needs of the community and its members;
          (16) to support the purchase by a law enforcement 
        agency of no more than 1 service weapon per officer, 
        upon hiring for deployment in community-oriented 
        policing or, if necessary, upon existing officers' 
        initial redeployment to community-oriented policing;
          (17) to participate in nationally recognized active 
        shooter training programs that offer scenario-based, 
        integrated response courses designed to counter active 
        shooter threats or acts of terrorism against 
        individuals or facilities;
          (18) to provide specialized training to law 
        enforcement officers to--
                  (A) recognize individuals who have a mental 
                illness; and
                  (B) properly interact with individuals who 
                have a mental illness, including strategies for 
                verbal de-escalation of crises;
          (19) to establish collaborative programs that enhance 
        the ability of law enforcement agencies to address the 
        mental health, behavioral, and substance abuse problems 
        of individuals encountered by law enforcement officers 
        in the line of duty;
          (20) to provide specialized training to corrections 
        officers to recognize individuals who have a mental 
        illness;
          (21) to enhance the ability of corrections officers 
        to address the mental health of individuals under the 
        care and custody of jails and prisons, including 
        specialized training and strategies for verbal de-
        escalation of crises;
          (22) to develop best practices for and to create 
        civilian review boards;
          (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;
          [(22)] (26) to permit tribal governments receiving 
        direct law enforcement services from the Bureau of 
        Indian Affairs to access the program under this section 
        for use in accordance with paragraphs (1) through 
        [(21)] (25); and
          [(23)] (27) to establish peer mentoring mental health 
        and wellness pilot programs within State, tribal, and 
        local law enforcement agencies.
  (c) Preferential Consideration of Applications for Certain 
Grants.--In awarding grants under this part, the Attorney 
General may give preferential consideration, where feasible, to 
an application--
          (1) for hiring and rehiring additional career law 
        enforcement officers that involves a non-Federal 
        contribution exceeding the 25 percent minimum under 
        subsection (g);
          (2) from an applicant in a State that has in effect a 
        law that--
                  (A) treats a minor who has engaged in, or has 
                attempted to engage in, a commercial sex act as 
                a victim of a severe form of trafficking in 
                persons;
                  (B) discourages or prohibits the charging or 
                prosecution of an individual described in 
                subparagraph (A) for a prostitution or sex 
                trafficking offense, based on the conduct 
                described in subparagraph (A); and
                  (C) encourages the diversion of an individual 
                described in subparagraph (A) to appropriate 
                service providers, including child welfare 
                services, victim treatment programs, child 
                advocacy centers, rape crisis centers, or other 
                social services; or
          (3) from an applicant in a State that has in effect a 
        law--
                  (A) that--
                          (i) provides a process by which an 
                        individual who is a human trafficking 
                        survivor can move to vacate any arrest 
                        or conviction records for a non-violent 
                        offense committed as a direct result of 
                        human trafficking, including 
                        prostitution or lewdness;
                          (ii) establishes a rebuttable 
                        presumption that any arrest or 
                        conviction of an individual for an 
                        offense associated with human 
                        trafficking is a result of being 
                        trafficked, if the individual--
                                  (I) is a person granted 
                                nonimmigrant status pursuant to 
                                section 101(a)(15)(T)(i) of the 
                                Immigration and Nationality Act 
                                (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T)(i));
                                  (II) is the subject of a 
                                certification by the Secretary 
                                of Health and Human Services 
                                under section 107(b)(1)(E) of 
                                the Trafficking Victims 
                                Protection Act of 2000 (22 
                                U.S.C. 7105(b)(1)(E)); or
                                  (III) has other similar 
                                documentation of trafficking, 
                                which has been issued by a 
                                Federal, State, or local 
                                agency; and
                          (iii) protects the identity of 
                        individuals who are human trafficking 
                        survivors in public and court records; 
                        and
                  (B) that does not require an individual who 
                is a human trafficking survivor to provide 
                official documentation as described in 
                subclause (I), (II), or (III) of subparagraph 
                (A)(ii) in order to receive protection under 
                the law.
  (d) Technical Assistance.--
          (1) In general.--The Attorney General may provide 
        technical assistance to States, units of local 
        government, Indian tribal governments, and to other 
        public and private entities, in furtherance of the 
        purposes of the Public Safety Partnership and Community 
        Policing Act of 1994.
          (2) Model.--The technical assistance provided by the 
        Attorney General may include the development of a 
        flexible model that will define for State and local 
        governments, and other public and private entities, 
        definitions and strategies associated with community or 
        problem-oriented policing and methodologies for its 
        implementation.
          (3) Training centers and facilities.--The technical 
        assistance provided by the Attorney General may include 
        the establishment and operation of training centers or 
        facilities, either directly or by contracting or 
        cooperative arrangements. The functions of the centers 
        or facilities established under this paragraph may 
        include instruction and seminars for police executives, 
        managers, trainers, supervisors, and such others as the 
        Attorney General considers to be appropriate concerning 
        community or problem-oriented policing and improvements 
        in police-community interaction and cooperation that 
        further the purposes of the Public Safety Partnership 
        and Community Policing Act of 1994.
  (e) Utilization of Components.--The Attorney General may 
utilize any component or components of the Department of 
Justice in carrying out this part.
  (f) Minimum Amount.--Unless all applications submitted by any 
State and grantee within the State pursuant to subsection (a) 
have been funded, each qualifying State, together with grantees 
within the State, shall receive in each fiscal year pursuant to 
subsection (a) not less than 0.5 percent of the total amount 
appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to that 
subsection. In this subsection, ``qualifying State'' means any 
State which has submitted an application for a grant, or in 
which an eligible entity has submitted an application for a 
grant, which meets the requirements prescribed by the Attorney 
General and the conditions set out in this part.
  (g) Matching Funds.--The portion of the costs of a program, 
project, or activity provided by a grant under subsection (a) 
may not exceed 75 percent, unless the Attorney General waives, 
wholly or in part, the requirement under this subsection of a 
non-Federal contribution to the costs of a program, project, or 
activity. In relation to a grant for a period exceeding 1 year 
for hiring or rehiring career law enforcement officers, the 
Federal share shall decrease from year to year for up to 5 
years, looking toward the continuation of the increased hiring 
level using State or local sources of funding following the 
conclusion of Federal support, as provided in an approved plan 
pursuant to section 1702(c)(8).
  (h) Allocation of Funds.--The funds available under this part 
shall be allocated as provided in section 1001(a)(11)(B).
  (i) Termination of Grants for Hiring Officers.--Except as 
provided in subsection (j), the authority under subsection (a) 
of this section to make grants for the hiring and rehiring of 
additional career law enforcement officers shall lapse at the 
conclusion of 6 years from the date of enactment of this part. 
Prior to the expiration of this grant authority, the Attorney 
General shall submit a report to Congress concerning the 
experience with and effects of such grants. The report may 
include any recommendations the Attorney General may have for 
amendments to this part and related provisions of law in light 
of the termination of the authority to make grants for the 
hiring and rehiring of additional career law enforcement 
officers.
  (j) Grants to Indian Tribes.--
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (i) and 
        section 1703, and in acknowledgment of the Federal 
        nexus and distinct Federal responsibility to address 
        and prevent crime in Indian country, the Attorney 
        General shall provide grants under this section to 
        Indian tribal governments, for fiscal year 2011 and any 
        fiscal year thereafter, for such period as the Attorney 
        General determines to be appropriate to assist the 
        Indian tribal governments in carrying out the purposes 
        described in subsection (b).
          (2) Priority of funding.--In providing grants to 
        Indian tribal governments under this subsection, the 
        Attorney General shall take into consideration 
        reservation crime rates and tribal law enforcement 
        staffing needs of each Indian tribal government.
          (3) Federal share.--Because of the Federal nature and 
        responsibility for providing public safety on Indian 
        land, the Federal share of the cost of any activity 
        carried out using a grant under this subsection--
                  (A) shall be 100 percent; and
                  (B) may be used to cover indirect costs.
          (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
        subsection $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 
        through 2015.
  (k) COPS Anti-Meth Program.--The Attorney General shall use 
amounts otherwise appropriated to carry out this section for a 
fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2019) to make 
competitive grants, in amounts of not less than $1,000,000 for 
such fiscal year, to State law enforcement agencies with high 
seizures of precursor chemicals, finished methamphetamine, 
laboratories, and laboratory dump seizures for the purpose of 
locating or investigating illicit activities, such as precursor 
diversion, laboratories, or methamphetamine traffickers.
  (l) Cops Anti-heroin Task Force Program.--The Attorney 
General shall use amounts otherwise appropriated to carry out 
this section, or other amounts as appropriated, for a fiscal 
year (beginning with fiscal year 2019) to make competitive 
grants to State law enforcement agencies in States with high 
per capita rates of primary treatment admissions, for the 
purpose of locating or investigating illicit activities, 
through Statewide collaboration, relating to the distribution 
of heroin, fentanyl, or carfentanil or relating to the unlawful 
distribution of prescription opioids.
  (m) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this subsection, the Attorney General shall submit 
to Congress a report describing the extent and effectiveness of 
the Community Oriented Policing (COPS) initiative as applied in 
Indian country, including particular references to--
          (1) the problem of intermittent funding;
          (2) the integration of COPS personnel with existing 
        law enforcement authorities; and
          (3) an explanation of how the practice of community 
        policing and the broken windows theory can most 
        effectively be applied in remote tribal locations.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1709. DEFINITIONS.

   In this part--
          (1) ``career law enforcement officer'' means a person 
        hired on a permanent basis who is authorized by law or 
        by a State or local public agency to engage in or 
        supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation 
        of violations of criminal laws.
          (2) ``citizens' police academy'' means a program by 
        local law enforcement agencies or private nonprofit 
        organizations in which citizens, especially those who 
        participate in neighborhood watch programs, are trained 
        in ways of facilitating communication between the 
        community and local law enforcement in the prevention 
        of crime.
          (3) ``Indian tribe'' means a tribe, band, pueblo, 
        nation, or other organized group or community of 
        Indians, including an Alaska Native village (as defined 
        in or established under the Alaska Native Claims 
        Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)), that is 
        recognized as eligible for the special programs and 
        services provided by the United States to Indians 
        because of their status as Indians.
          (4) ``school resource officer'' means a career law 
        enforcement officer, with sworn authority, deployed in 
        community-oriented policing, and assigned by the 
        employing police department or agency to work in 
        collaboration with schools and community-based 
        organizations--
                  (A) to address crime and disorder problems, 
                gangs, and drug activities affecting or 
                occurring in or around an elementary or 
                secondary school;
                  (B) to develop or expand crime prevention 
                efforts for students;
                  (C) to educate likely school-age victims in 
                crime prevention and safety;
                  (D) to develop or expand community justice 
                initiatives for students;
                  (E) to train students in conflict resolution, 
                restorative justice, and crime awareness;
                  (F) to assist in the identification of 
                physical changes in the environment that may 
                reduce crime in or around the school; and
                  (G) to assist in developing school policy 
                that addresses crime and to recommend 
                procedural changes.
          (5) ``commercial sex act'' has the meaning given the 
        term in section 103 of the Victims of Trafficking and 
        Violence Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102).
          (6) ``minor'' means an individual who has not 
        attained the age of 18 years.
          (7) ``severe form of trafficking in persons'' has the 
        meaning given the term in section 103 of the Victims of 
        Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (22 
        U.S.C. 7102).
          (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


      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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                       CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT

TITLE II--CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Part E--Administrative and Enforcement Provisions

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            search warrants

  Sec. 509. A search warrant relating to offenses involving 
controlled substances may be served at any time of the day or 
night if the judge or United States magistrate issuing the 
warrant is satisfied that there is probable cause to believe 
that grounds exist for the warrant and for its service at such 
time. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


                      TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
SUBTITLE A--GENERAL MILITARY LAW

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 153--EXCHANGE OF MATERIAL AND DISPOSAL OF OBSOLETE, SURPLUS, OR 
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 2576a. Excess personal property: sale or donation for law 
                    enforcement activities

  (a) Transfer Authorized.--(1) Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary 
of Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal 
property of the Department of Defense, including small arms and 
ammunition, that the Secretary determines is--
          (A) suitable for use by the agencies in law 
        enforcement activities, including [counterdrug, 
        counterterrorism, and border security activities] 
        counterterrorism; and
          (B) excess to the needs of the Department of Defense.
  (2) The Secretary shall carry out this section in 
consultation with the Attorney General[, the Director of 
National Drug Control Policy,] and the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, as appropriate.
  (b) Conditions for Transfer.--The Secretary of Defense may 
transfer personal property under this section only if--
          (1) the property is drawn from existing stocks of the 
        Department of Defense;
          (2) the recipient accepts the property on an as-is, 
        where-is basis;
          (3) the transfer is made without the expenditure of 
        any funds available to the Department of Defense for 
        the procurement of defense equipment;
          (4) all costs incurred subsequent to the transfer of 
        the property are borne or reimbursed by the recipient;
          (5) the recipient, on an annual basis, and with the 
        authorization of the relevant local governing body or 
        authority, certifies that it has adopted publicly 
        available protocols for the appropriate use of 
        controlled property, the supervision of such use, and 
        the evaluation of the effectiveness of such use, 
        including auditing and accountability policies; [and]
          (6) after the completion of the assessment required 
        by section 1051(e) of the National Defense 
        Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, the recipient, 
        on an annual basis, certifies that it provides annual 
        training to relevant personnel on the maintenance, 
        sustainment, and appropriate use of controlled 
        property[.];
          (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) Consideration.--Subject to subsection (b)(4), the 
Secretary may transfer personal property under this section 
without charge to the recipient agency.
  [(d) Preference for Certain Transfers.--In considering 
applications for the transfer of personal property under this 
section, the Secretary shall give a preference to those 
applications indicating that the transferred property will be 
used in the counterdrug, counterterrorism, or border security 
activities of the recipient agency.]
  (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) Controlled firearms, ammunition, bayonets, 
        grenade launchers, grenades (including stun and flash-
        bang),and explosives.
          (B) Controlled vehicles, highly mobile multi-wheeled 
        vehicles, mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, 
        trucks, truck dump, truck utility, and truck carryall.
          (C) Drones that are armored, weaponized, or both.
          (D) Controlled aircraft that--
                  (i) are combat configured or combat coded; or
                  (ii) have no established commercial flight 
                application.
          (E) Silencers.
          (F) Long-range acoustic devices.
          (G) Items in the Federal Supply Class of banned 
        items.
  (2) The Secretary may not require, as a condition of a 
transfer under this section, that a Federal or State agency 
demonstrate the use of any small arms or ammunition.
  (3) The limitations under this subsection shall also apply 
with respect to the transfer of previously transferred property 
of the Department of Defense from one Federal or State agency 
to another such agency.
  (4)(A) The Secretary may waive the applicability of paragraph 
(1) to a vehicle described in subparagraph (B) of such 
paragraph (other than a mine-resistant ambush-protected 
vehicle), if the Secretary determines that such a waiver is 
necessary for disaster or rescue purposes or for another 
purpose where life and public safety are at risk, as 
demonstrated by the proposed recipient of the vehicle.
  (B) If the Secretary issues a waiver under subparagraph (A), 
the Secretary shall--
          (i) submit to Congress notice of the waiver, and post 
        such notice on a public Internet website of the 
        Department, by not later than 30 days after the date on 
        which the waiver is issued; and
          (ii) require, as a condition of the waiver, that the 
        recipient of the vehicle for which the waiver is issued 
        provides public notice of the waiver and the transfer, 
        including the type of vehicle and the purpose for which 
        it is transferred, in the jurisdiction where the 
        recipient is located by not later than 30 days after 
        the date on which the waiver is issued.
  (5) The Secretary may provide for an exemption to the 
limitation under subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) in the case 
of parts for aircraft described in such subparagraph that are 
transferred as part of regular maintenance of aircraft in an 
existing fleet.
  (6) The Secretary shall require, as a condition of any 
transfer of property under this section, that the Federal or 
State agency that receives the property shall return the 
property to the Secretary if the agency--
          (A) is investigated by the Department of Justice for 
        any violation of civil liberties; or
          (B) is otherwise found to have engaged in widespread 
        abuses of civil liberties.
  (g) Conditions for Extension of Program.--Notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, amounts authorized to be appropriated 
or otherwise made available for any fiscal year may not be 
obligated or expended to carry out this section unless the 
Secretary submits to Congress certification that for the 
preceding fiscal year that--
          (1) each Federal or State agency that has received 
        controlled property transferred under this section 
        has--
                  (A) demonstrated 100 percent accountability 
                for all such property, in accordance with 
                paragraph (2) or (3), as applicable; or
                  (B) been suspended from the program pursuant 
                to paragraph (4);
          (2) with respect to each non-Federal agency that has 
        received controlled property under this section, the 
        State coordinator responsible for each such agency has 
        verified that the coordinator or an agent of the 
        coordinator has conducted an in-person inventory of the 
        property transferred to the agency and that 100 percent 
        of such property was accounted for during the inventory 
        or that the agency has been suspended from the program 
        pursuant to paragraph (4);
          (3) with respect to each Federal agency that has 
        received controlled property under this section, the 
        Secretary of Defense or an agent of the Secretary has 
        conducted an in-person inventory of the property 
        transferred to the agency and that 100 percent of such 
        property was accounted for during the inventory or that 
        the agency has been suspended from the program pursuant 
        to paragraph (4);
          (4) the eligibility of any agency that has received 
        controlled property under this section for which 100 
        percent of the property was not accounted for during an 
        inventory described in paragraph (1) or (2), as 
        applicable, to receive any property transferred under 
        this section has been suspended; and
          (5) each State coordinator has certified, for each 
        non-Federal agency located in the State for which the 
        State coordinator is responsible that--
                  (A) the agency has complied with all 
                requirements under this section; or
                  (B) the eligibility of the agency to receive 
                property transferred under this section has 
                been suspended; and
          (6) the Secretary of Defense has certified, for each 
        Federal agency that has received property under this 
        section that--
                  (A) the agency has complied with all 
                requirements under this section; or
                  (B) the eligibility of the agency to receive 
                property transferred under this section has 
                been suspended.
  (h) Prohibition on Ownership of Controlled Property.--A 
Federal or State agency that receives controlled property under 
this section may not take ownership of the property.
  (i) Notice to Congress of Property Downgrades.--Not later 
than 30 days before downgrading the classification of any item 
of personal property from controlled or Federal Supply Class, 
the Secretary shall submit to Congress notice of the proposed 
downgrade.
  (j) Notice to Congress of Property Cannibalization.--Before 
the Defense Logistics Agency authorizes the recipient of 
property transferred under this section to cannibalize the 
property, the Secretary shall submit to Congress notice of such 
authorization, including the name of the recipient requesting 
the authorization, the purpose of the proposed cannibalization, 
and the type of property proposed to be cannibalized.
  (k) Quarterly Reports on Use of Controlled Equipment.--Not 
later than 30 days after the last day of a fiscal quarter, the 
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on any uses of 
controlled property transferred under this section during that 
fiscal quarter.
  (l) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after the 
last day of a fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to 
Congress a report on the following for the preceding fiscal 
year:
          (1) The percentage of equipment lost by recipients of 
        property transferred under this section, including 
        specific information about the type of property lost, 
        the monetary value of such property, and the recipient 
        that lost the property.
          (2) The transfer of any new (condition code A) 
        property transferred under this section, including 
        specific information about the type of property, the 
        recipient of the property, the monetary value of each 
        item of the property, and the total monetary value of 
        all such property transferred during the fiscal year.
  [(e)] (o) Publicly Accessible Website.--(1) The Secretary 
shall create and maintain a publicly available Internet website 
that provides information on the controlled property 
transferred under this section and the recipients of such 
property.
  (2) The contents of the Internet website required under 
paragraph (1) shall include all publicly accessible 
unclassified information pertaining to the request, transfer, 
denial, and repossession of controlled property under this 
section, including--
          (A) a current inventory of all controlled property 
        transferred to Federal and State agencies under this 
        section, listed by the name of the recipient and the 
        year of the transfer;
          (B) all pending requests for transfers of controlled 
        property under this section, including the information 
        submitted by the Federal and State agencies requesting 
        such transfers; and
          (C) all reports required to be submitted to the 
        Secretary under this section by Federal and State 
        agencies that receive controlled property under this 
        section.
  [(f)] (p) Controlled Property.--In this section, the term 
``controlled property'' means any item assigned a 
demilitarization code of B, C, D, E, G, or Q under Department 
of Defense Manual 4160.21-M, ``Defense Materiel Disposition 
Manual'', or any successor document.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                            AMinority Views

    Following the murder of George Floyd while in the custody 
of the Minneapolis Police Department, Americans across the 
political spectrum have called for a bipartisan response to 
address police misconduct. On June 8, 2020, House Democrats 
introduced H.R. 7120, the Justice in Policing Act of 2020, 
sponsored by Representative Karen Bass.\1\ Committee Democrats 
drafted its 135-page bill and a subsequent substitute amendment 
to the bill without any attempt at serious consultation with 
Republicans on this Committee. In doing so, Chairman Nadler and 
the Democrat Majority chose to prioritize political messaging 
over crafting consensus-based, effective legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\H.R. 7120, 116th Cong. (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Nadler and Committee Democrats have affirmatively 
chosen not to work cooperatively with Republicans on this 
legislation. Prior to the introduction of H.R. 7120, 
Republicans reached out to Democrats to inquire if they would 
be willing to share legislative text for review by Committee 
Members. Democrats rejected that request. Republicans asked if 
Democrats would be willing to share a summary or section-by-
section analysis of the bill. Democrats responded that all 
materials were under embargo until the bill was introduced. 
Likewise, Democrats allowed no consultation with Republicans in 
the drafting of Chairman Nadler's amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
    Chairman Nadler and the Democrat Majority's refusal to work 
collaboratively with Republicans--or even to share basic 
information about the legislation--prevents the Committee from 
developing sound public policy. Although Republican Members 
agree that police reform is needed and even support some 
aspects of H.R. 7120, the proposals must be thoughtfully 
considered so as not to endanger the public or law enforcement 
officers by creating under-resourced and over-restricted police 
departments. Such a deliberative process did not occur with 
this bill. Because the Democrat Majority shut Republicans out 
of the process and rushed to pass this legislation, several of 
the provisions within H.R. 7210 have serious shortcomings.

   I. H.R. 7120 AS DRAFTED WILL HANDICAP LAW-ABIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT 
            OFFICERS AND MAKE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES LESS SAFE

Lowering the mens rea standard--Section 101
    Section 101 of the bill would change the mens rea standard 
when charging an officer with criminal misconduct from 
``willfulness'' to ``knowingly or recklessly.'' Currently, to 
be convicted of a crime, an officer must specifically intend to 
``deprive a person of a federal right made definite by decision 
or other rule of law.'' The lower standard of ``knowingly or 
recklessly'' would allow an officer to be convicted without 
having a specific intent to deprive a person of a federal 
right. While law enforcement officers who commit crimes must be 
held accountable for their actions, lowering the mens rea 
standard could have unintended adverse consequences to public 
safety. Law enforcement officers often find themselves in 
situations that require split second decisions under 
considerable stress. In those harrowing moments, hesitation and 
second-guessing can be dangerous--and perhaps deadly--for the 
officers and the public. This section will cause law 
enforcement officers to hesitate the next time they encounter 
these difficult decisions.
Removal of the qualified immunity doctrine--Section 102
    Section 102 of the bill would single out federal law 
enforcement officers, along with state and local law 
enforcement and correctional officers, for reduced protection 
under the qualified immunity doctrine. Under the judicially-
created doctrine of qualified immunity, government actors, such 
as police officers, teachers, and social workers, are shielded 
from alleged constitutional or statutory violations as long as 
their actions ``[do] not violate `clearly established' 
statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person 
would have known.''\2\ Thus, qualified immunity serves to 
protect government officials from civil liability for their 
misconduct in certain instances while on the job.\3\ Under this 
bill, Democrats eliminate qualified immunity for law 
enforcement officers, while persevering the existing standard 
for all other state and local officials, many of whom have less 
complex and dangerous jobs than law enforcement officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 801 (1982).
    \3\Charles Doyle, Cong. Research Serv., WSLG1825, Police Liability 
for Less Than Excessive Force (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The removal of qualified immunity for law enforcement 
officers will have a detrimental effect on local communities. 
The Supreme Court has noted that ``[q]ualified immunity gives 
government officials breathing room to make reasonable but 
mistaken judgments about open legal questions.''\4\ One 
commentator has also noted that the doctrine seeks to ``strike 
a balance'' because ``you don't want to have a legal system or 
an officer who is going to shirk from doing their duty.''\5\ If 
the qualified immunity doctrine is no longer available to law 
enforcement officers, law enforcement agencies could have more 
difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified and talented 
people as law enforcement officers. The net result would be 
more dangerous communities and neighborhoods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011).
    \5\Devin Dwyer, ``Qualified immunity'' for police getting fresh 
look by Supreme Court after George Floyd death, ABC News (Jun. 4, 
2020), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/police-immunity-rule-fresh-
supreme-court-george-floyd/story?id=71044230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishment of a National Police Misconduct Registry--Section 201
    Section 201 of the bill requires the Attorney General to 
establish a public registry maintained by the Department of 
Justice (DOJ) that contains complaints against federal, state, 
and local police officers (including complaints that have not 
yet been adjudicated), discipline records, termination records, 
records of lawsuits and settlements, and officer 
certifications. While Committee Republicans are supportive of 
transparency and holding bad officers accountable for their 
misconduct, the composition of the public registry under 
section 201 is problematic. A national public registry that 
includes unadjudicated complaints, or complaints that were 
determined to be unfounded, raises serious due process concerns 
for the law-abiding law enforcement officers subjected to 
unadjudicated or unfounded complaints.

Limiting federal programs that provide military equipment to law 
        enforcement--Section 365

    Section 365 seeks to drastically limit the Department of 
Defense's (DOD) 1033 program. This program, created through 
section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1997, 
allows law enforcement agencies at all levels of government to 
receive surplus equipment such as bulletproof vests, helmets, 
and armored vehicles. This equipment--some of which may be 
financially unobtainable for local law enforcement agencies--
protects law enforcement officers and the communities they 
serve during dangerous situations.\6\ Equipment transferred 
under these programs has also been used to rescue victims in 
emergency situations such as natural disasters.\7\ Recognizing 
the value in this program, President Trump signed an executive 
order in 2017 that restored the program after it had been 
scaled back under the Obama Administration.\8\ As a result of 
section 365, state and local law enforcement agencies, and 
especially those that exist in jurisdictions with budget 
shortfalls, will be less equipped to serve their communities in 
emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Adam Goldman, Trump Reverses Restrictions on Military Hardware 
for Police, N.Y. Times (Aug. 28, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/
08/28/us/politics/trump-police-military-surplus-equipment.html.
    \7\Kari Blakinger, Military surplus program saved lives during 
Harvey, Houston-area law enforcement say, Houston Chronicle, October 
22, 2017.
    \8\Adam Goldman, Trump Reverses Restrictions on Military Hardware 
for Police, N.Y. Times (Aug. 28, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/
08/28/us/politics/trump-police-military-surplus-equipment.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. REPUBLICAN AMENDMENTS REJECTED BY THE DEMOCRAT MAJORITY WOULD HAVE 
                        IMPROVED THE LEGISLATION

    During the Committee's business meeting to consider H.R. 
7120, Republicans offered a dozen amendments to improve the 
base bill. Chairman Nadler and the Democrat Majority declined 
to accept--or even serious entertain--a single amendment 
offered by Republicans. Democrats missed a unique opportunity 
in the wake of national calls for bipartisan reform to actually 
work across the aisle and pass meaningful legislation.

Improving police accountability

    Republicans offered amendments to improve police 
accountability. Although the bill requires state and local law 
enforcement agencies to expand their use of recording equipment 
in their day-to-day operations, Democrats rejected an amendment 
offered by Representative Armstrong to require federal law 
enforcement agencies record all interviews in connection to the 
investigation of a federal offense. Similarly, although 
Democrats asserted that the bill is designed to increase 
accountability for police officers who commit misconduct, 
Democrats rejected an amendment from Representative Cline that 
would have prevented union collective bargaining agreements 
from standing in the way of holding bad cops accountable.

Strengthening penalties for lynching

    Included among the amendments that the Democrat Majority 
refused to support was an amendment from Representative Gohmert 
that provided meaningfulness to the Justice for Victims of 
Lynching Act, including in H.R. 7120 as Title IV. A crime as 
heinous as lynching deserves to be punished with a greater 
penalty than merely up to 10 years imprisonment. The amendment 
offered by Representative Gohmert would have augmented the 
allowable sentence to any term of years, including life and 
death. After Chairman Nadler announced his opposition to the 
amendment on the basis of it including the death penalty, 
Representative Gohmert offered to remove the death penalty 
language. Chairman Nadler and the Democrat Majority nonetheless 
rejected the amendment.

Ensuring adequate border security

    Representative Gaetz offered an amendment to ensure that 
those agencies engaged in border securities activities would 
still have access to excess DOD property through the 1033 
program. These agencies are fighting against violent cartels, 
human traffickers, and smugglers on a daily basis. Democrats 
rejected this amendment on a party line vote.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    All Americans want safe communities. All Americans want 
effective, transparent, and accountable policing. The Justice 
in Policing Act--conceived, introduced, and marked-up on a 
purely partisan basis--regrettably falls short of securing 
those goals.
    Chairman Nadler and Committee Democrats had an opportunity 
to work collaboratively with Republicans to produce 
comprehensive, well-designed legislation to improve policing in 
America. President Trump has issued a bold executive order on 
police reform and House and Senate Republicans have introduced 
carefully considered legislation, the Justice Act, in each 
chamber. However, in a failure of leadership to meet the 
historic moment, Chairman Nadler chose not to solicit or 
seriously consider any Republican proposals. The result is a 
partisan piece of legislation with virtually no hope of 
becoming law.
    The Committee process in reporting H.R. 7120 to the House 
floor demonstrates that Democrats would rather have an 
election-year talking point than a bipartisan bill that offers 
true advances in police reform.It is apparent that Democrats 
drafted this bill more to satisfy their far-left base who support 
efforts to defund, dismantle and disband the police than to secure 
Republican support. In an election year, Chairman Nadler and House 
Democrats chose partisanship over policy-making, and politics over 
police reform. Americans deserve better.

                                   Jim Jordan.
                                           Ranking Member.

                                  [all]